On separate occasions (on the prior board, under a different name), I've had Jim and Manlobbi respond to me, including on a point I had only half-made. In some ways they simply used my point to discuss an investing point they had put a lot of thought into. Both received more "recs" than I had.

I admit to some mild, initial annoyance at the collective event, but my larger impression was that both Jim and Manlobbi went on to discuss things that were worth listening to, and that I had learned something from their posts, even when I disagreed. I've generally found both to be generous in spirit, and polite, often exceedingly so. I didn't reply to their posts, as I had nothing left to contribute. None of it was personal. They are two smart people with things to say.

(I've also always read dealraker's posts, and have learned from them. I also don't disagree with him that having a thought leader or two on a board can stifle genuine discussion.)

All of this is to say that I think words and phrases like "attack", or "attacking you", are entirely out of place here. It's a message board. Sometimes meaning is misunderstood or lost in exchange. Sometimes the meaning of one poster simply prompts another to say something that is on their mind. This is all a normal part of human conversation and language, especially when the conversation is done via a format that is less expressive and lacking the normal human cues as compared to real life conversation.