If a person says things that a website owner warns him not to continue with, breaking rules and speaking out of line, but he does it anyway, because said person doesn't like what the owner says about a political candidate, it's not a purge if he gets suspended, it's a disciplinary action.
Your choice of saying purge is a clear rhetorical device that tries to make people believe, or perhaps, reinforcing what you personally wish to believe happened.
Many folks threw themselves upon the sword after warnings. A number of folks asked for their accounts to be closed. Some just left. If it is a purge, it's a self-purge of those who didn't want to be at a forum where their views were at odds with the stated mission-purpose of the site, and that is reiterated in the opening message of this thread.
It's disingenuous of you to continue using that term. It's a rhetorical form of bait, and declares, "I don't care what really happens, this is how I want to think about it." You are either self-deluding, or determined to make some political point that satisfies some need of your own, but it is not the mark of a truth seeker. It might be the mark of someone who is enjoying the word game for the fun of it. That in turn speaks volumes.
Well put. Very well put.
You’re right.
Sky, you should probably start using “exodus” instead.
It’s probably more grammatically correct.
Ummm,
It’s a purge.
“...to purge is to remove people considered by the group in power to be ‘undesirable’ from a government, political party, a profession, or from community or society as a whole...”
The method of removal is irrelevant when the goal - and the outcome - is the same. Purged objects are gone forever, and isn’t the intent after all?