For reference:

Moral Ontology vis-à-vis The Ontological History of Reason Itself — at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-religion/moral_ontology_vis_a_vis_the_ontological_history_of_reason_itself/

On the Goalpost of the Ontology of Reason — at http://disq.us/p/21c5f5r

(...this comment http://disq.us/p/21c5r64 ...)

It was not foreseeable that it would be that bad there. As I said, there is nothing I can do for restoring them. I even no longer see them there either. I only have a copy of their initial versions (without edits) in my mailbox. Maybe you can try to repost them here or to reproduce the relevant parts of them in further replies (which might be clearer but this is up to you) as it will be quite hard to reconstruct the initial structure of the thread anyway. Or a combination of both: you reproduce them just in reply to this message, without any thread structure, and then refer to them in subsequent replies.

EDIT: Indeed, this solution is all but satisfactory and we might end up unwelcome here too, including with stuff that disappear. The only good solution would probably be that one of us create a blog and open a comment section on it.

It's the same problem here as on the forum you opened in that my comments are not present in their entirety which for obvious reason's isn't adequate.

I removed my messages on Randal's site regarding the Ethics channel issue.
Currently, all my "open" comments to you are:
On Y / schrug: http://disq.us/p/218roum
On the need for currency: http://disq.us/p/2195hn7
On goalpost: http://disq.us/p/219e5tg
Regarding the last one, it seems that I mistakenly sent it to myself instead of sending it to you but if I delete it and repost it, it is likely that it will be filtered out as spam. Now you have the link anyway.

Agree http://disq.us/p/219m69c

I did not created the ethics channel. I only created a discussion within it and there does not seem to be any control at the discussion level.

http://disq.us/p/219lxab

No. I did not remove anything and I did not close anything there. Though this has not been explicitly said, it seems that we are not welcome there and I don't plan to insist. This is why I resumed here though I am not much satisfied with the solution.

Your thread is closed to comments and won't take new comments. Did you close it?

[…] you've not shown any valid Currency by which we can Reason short of Reductio / Brute Fact / Contradiction, which "just is" the Goalpost […]

OK. Let’s talk about the goalpost.

It was not clear to me that this was the goalpost and it is still not fully clear what it is since what a “valid currency” could be or should be has never really been clarified.

It is not clear to me either what difference you make between “reductio” and “contradiction” here as, as I understand it, “reductio (ad absurdum)” is just a particular case of contradiction. Is there any particular reason for mentioning it here? If not, maybe we could drop it for the sake of clarity and of concision. On the other hand, I would say that freedom from circularity, which you did not mention, should be included. It is not clear to me either why we should require freedom from brute facts but let’s do with that for now. However, if we keep it, it should be there for anyone.

We should try to eventually clarify what a “valid currency” exactly is or, even better, try to formulate things without resorting to this cryptic and confusing term. What about rephrasing the above quote (including the above suggested changes in the “short of” requirements) as:

[…] you've not provided a grounding of reason free from contradiction, circularity and brute fact, which “just is” the goalpost […]

I also dropped the capital letter at the beginning of the words as I don’t think they help. If those were here to indicate a usage of the term that is different from the ordinary one, this should be clarified.

Can you at least confirm that “providing a grounding of reason free from contradiction, circularity and brute fact” is the goalpost? Otherwise, clarifying what the goalpost is requires clarifying what a “valid currency” is.