@boulderjohn
Go back to the posts in Accidents and Incidents. It was the moderator's judgement. End of story. It's everyone's choice to participate or not. It's not in anybody's interest to second guess, you should know that. It's generally a very friendly, helpful board.
I think an explanation is in order so that we can have guidance for the future. We don't want to run afoul of the ToS, and for that reason, we need to understand the ToS. I was always led to believe that a personal attack should attack an individual personally. As the opening post in this thread nicely indicates, the person moderated did not know why he was being moderated. Whom did he attack personally? Don't you think he merits an explanation beyond "moderator's judgment"?
I am not literally a rat, but I am a cave diver. Was he attacking me personally? I cannot see it, because I don't see how it demeans any particular cave diver, and I have to believer that nearly every cave diver would agree that it is accurate. In fact, it does not attack cave divers either as individuals or as a collective except to point out an obvious truth--they are not at all organized.
Back when I was a moderator, we were told in colloquial terms that in personal attacks, the writer plays the man (the individual supposedly being attacked) rather than the ball. You can attack what the person says, but not the person saying it. For example, in this most recent exchange, it would have been considered acceptable to say that "most people would find the language Scubadada used in his last few posts rude, arrogant, and condescending." In contrast, it would not have been acceptable to say "Scubadada is rude, arrogant, and condescending."
I just want to know how the rules have changed so I know how to post in the future.