Keiva dissembles. By entitling his thread "Proposal for a Solution," he seeks not actually to legitimate what he says, but to lend it the *appearance* of legitimacy. Keiva’s language seems to refer to an arbitration in which he is engaged, either with wordsmith or the other members of this forum. This is "seeming" in its active sense; in the present context, it might almost be thought malicious. It is, in any event, performative speech and wildly imaginative.
There is no arbitration here, but rather, a series of one-sided threats to bring suit. The implied reference to a non-existent abitration is an attempt to create the illusion not only of the existence of such arbitration, but its pre-existence. That is, it is an effort to create the--false--impression that we have been engaged in engaged an arbitration all along.
There is method in this. Pretending to offer ‘a solution’ in the context of an arbitration, lends that ‘solution’ the appearance of fairness: an arbitration must strive for fairness and 'the solution' is offered as a part and in the spirit thereof.
But that is only half the method. Here is the underbelly. By pretending the context of a quasi-legal forum, Keiva offers his solution with a tacit reference to law and as though his complaints had been found to have merit. That is, his ‘solution’ contains a veiled reiteration of the same old threat.
Thus, the ‘solution’ thread is just another bullying tactic. It is designed to extract concessions, not on the basis of what is fair or proper, but on the basis of an imperial sense of entitlement.
Put simply, "I will leave if you do ‘x’ for me," is the sort of thing one is used to hear from the mouths of bullies.
