I think the issue here in the thread is for a large part actually just revolved around word choice, rather than substantial difference in opinion, but i might be wrong. Meaning, if i take the quoted words in the OP at face value, it might seem like they're proposing a negation of a basic fact of life; conflict. In itself, despite sounding like nonsense, i do allow for entertaining it's possibility, actually. Like, taking it wider than that, someone who lives an entirely 'selfless' life. Someone who doesn't get attached to anything, who doesn't defend him/herself when attacked etc. This might seem like attaching too much concepts based on his words, but i'm giving examples of other ideas that propose to negate basic facts of life. Negate as in, offer a supposed way out of ever facing such facts.
Now, all that is fine, like i said, in that i allow for it's possibility, but if that's what he means, i want nothing to do with it. But that's not the only interpretation, obviously, rather there's one getting more at the point behind the words, which i think is the one you embrace personally and with which i'd agree. That point being, that he's addressing a type of love that does not allow for such emotions to get a hold of someone, or, rather than emotions, for such mindset (IOW someone being dominated by those things) to exist, and manifest in such ways so as to cripple happiness, to cripple freedom, and so forth. The point being that, love is about two people, not just one. In that interpretation, those emotions mentioned in the quote will still be experienced to varying levels and at different points, just not in the way that he's proposing for them to be negative, in his view of what love is. The way in which they would make a relationship generally more of an ongoing conflict in itself rather than containing some resolvable conflicts, to whichever degree.
Now, if the second interpretation is correct, then i agree with him, except on the part that despite of this being indeed the optimal sense in my view to loving someone - i wouldn't dismiss other expressions of love as 'not love'. If the first interpretation is the correct one, then like i clarified, i don't so much disagree as i don't care much about such proposition. Also, if there are other interpretations or details, which there most likely is, and you think them relevant here and i missed them, i would be happy if you would educate me about them.
