Having read some of the links LanX posted about this whole thing and some of the posts Khen1950fx has made, I do think both of you have a point.

It would come off a lot better, were you a Named Monk with recognisable contributions. I feel similarities here with another recent argument, but there both parties were known. If you assume an identity (be it the same as your normal identity, or a sockpuppet (which is of course generally frowned upon, but whatever)), it... it will define you somewhat, and there you can build (and destroy) your credibility. Whatever, I can’t phrase my thoughts for some reason. It just seems that named people can boldly go where nameless people cannot, maybe because you can easily blame them if they’re being stupid. By which I mean, I’ve seen some vile comments, much harsher than what was said here, and they got off with it.

On the other hand, there is a problem, just like in that other argument. And not just with the “attacker” — it takes two to tango.

Update: Oh, and seeing the sibling post above now... Yes, please do make a collection with sensible reasoning. It shall be better for everyone in the long run.