Well after waiting for quite some time for the reply to my question ('Is the name SOLO proper') from the founder, all I have got is that I have misrepresented SOLO. All that I said was that the name of the group should be true to its purpose and that we should fight for the primary - reason, and not the effect - a benevolent sense of life. I do not find it acceptable that the founder has not given me an explicit reply to such a fundamental question. So I'll take the only reply that I got (of 'misrepresenting SOLO') as the basis of my conclusions and actions.
If I have represented the importance of 'reason' to be upheld as the purpose, then I conclude that 'SOLO' does share this purpose (since I have misrepresented it).Whatever other purpose 'SOLO' intends to achieve I'll have no part in it, I will not give my sanction to such a purpose. I agree with Hugh Akston for the reason of his strike. This is my last message to the group.
A friend of mine told me that he posted in SOLO for a long time, because there are good people who do post here and they would appreciate what I have to say. To my friend and the people to whom he was referrring to, I would make it clear that I don't care, primarily, what others can get out of my views, this is not a good enough reason for me to be a part of SOLO. As far as sharing our views for mutual benefit is considered we can do it somewhere else, but if they want to get the benefit of my views and also give their sanction to a purpose which nullifies such a benefit, if they want to have their 'cake' and eat it too, I'll have no part in it, I'm not willing to trade on such terms.