I notice you continue to insinuate that some of these folks who have a grudge with some of you are somehow representative of Blurt. I know that you know better than this, as this would be the same as my saying that Berniesanders was representative of Steem and then Hive. 

I'm not here to make this any kind of pissing match between myself and anyone, just to ask that it be kept in mind that there are many who found some of the abuses due to flag power unpalatable and chose to leave. I was one of them, despite never having major issues personally as far as being a target. For myself it was watching a lot of folks I did form connections with get targeted, and at that always from the same one abusive account. 

I chose to leave quietly. No goodbye post. No rants. There are still many good folks here that I wish nothing but the best for. 

But as many meltdowns as I've witnessed, and some of the trolling that often does go along with those meltdowns seeking to amplify the meltdown for the lulz do have consequences and unfortunately there are many who don't see that further engaging with that energy that one finds troubling is not a good use of time. Some feel that somehow continuing the engagement of hostility serves some purpose.

I've always counseled against that behavior, with mixed results (usually a rationalization on why continuing to troll the home team on their court is a winning strategy).

I can't speak for what took place between many of you and Dan or Drutter or many others. And frankly it doesn't concern me all that much, other than some who have been coming to Blurt are from my old circles so in that sense I'm happy to see them. 

I personally never had any problems with you, and while not much of an art guy found your art of writing to be quite entertaining which I mentioned to you a few times. I do think at times you also troll some of those who you feel for whatever reason deserve it, which obviously has brought some return fire that hasn't been pleasant. At least this is how some of this looks to an impartial third party as myself.

Ultimately though it needs acknowledged that Dan and the others speak for themselves, not Blurt. In no way does the Blurt foundation encourage this, nor others such as myself. I see nothing wrong with discussing events one perceives as one where you are wronged, but there are times it goes to far.

I would ask that you look at some comments and posts to see that (as should have already been evident) that the writings and posts you and many others here take umbrage with are with certain folks, not Blurt as an organized chain seeking the destruction nor slander of Hive.

Here is a post I wrote more than a month ago on it in my bid to stop this ongoing war that continues.

https://blurt.blog/blurt/@practicalthought/cross-chain-enmity-is-a-waste-of-time-aka-learning-to-let-go

Here is a comment from Blurt co-founder suggesting one should let go and not bring some kind of war mentality to Blurt.

https://blurt.blog/blurt/@megadrive/rbpk15

I've consistently advocated for the idea we are grown ups, and if something or some place is bothering us, then the best way forward is to stop engaging with or visiting what is bothering us. Here was another case almost a year ago now where I urged another who was conducting some kind of Don Quixote war here to just put it aside and come to Blurt. His constant posts (I find his humor appealing at times so still followed him despite not logging in) trying to win some unnecessary war (that couldn't even have a definition of what winning would consist of) drawing me to log in once again to seek to reason with him.

https://hive.blog/hive-150329/@practicalthought/qvhgp2

While I don't care for Hive as a structure, and believe that some things are more important than bending the knee to fit in I have no desire for there to be some needless war between the chains. I think Hive is good for Blurt, as I think in many ways those who see flaws with it will find Blurt potentially more palatable, and probably the reverse can be said as well. I wish many here well, and believe there is more than enough room for both chains and many others. 

I believe that my standing at Blurt is one that is respected by many, and I've said time and again that there is simply no need to go to extremes in attacking. Especially if the attack seems ludicrous. I mention this to point out the conversation I had with Dan in the comment section of the post I linked to. 

Sorry so long winded, but I always felt you were a reasonable person the few times I interacted with you years ago, if met with an approach of humbleness and thought. I would appreciate if you could keep your displeasure at the back and forth taking place between those doing the actual back and forth. It's not being pushed for by most of Blurt, nor the witnesses. Nor those like myself. To say

> Building a social network upon a foundation of manipulation, like Blurt is doing, won't last. That makes it a cult.

is just as disingenuous as some of the comments you've been taking umbrage with, and which I personally called out as you can see from my post from over a month ago. 

I probably won't be logging back in, but thought it might be worth a shot to put my thoughts on all of this here regardless of whether they take root or not. And for what it's worth, I do find Dan likable despite some of the exaggerations I've mentioned to him I saw and whatever happened here that caused all of this. 

The funny thing about cult-ure is the crowd is usually against those others. You see it here with the shit talk about Blurt that began way before this structure from Dan began. Ironically it was approved by many here. Groups gonna do that group thing I guess.