<Your post clearly was intended to attack my integrity,>

I thought the poster was questioning your ability, not your integrity. That might not change your attitude with respect to whether there was a clear violation. But to me there is a big difference between the two words.

If the post clearly attacked your integrity, I suspect you would have said it that way as opposed to "intended to attack."

In any case, as to whether or not discussion of HL performance should be a discussion topic. You might want to look at one of my first posts as HL asking about this very subject. FWIW Not all HLs felt doing so should be a violation. And the reason for my question was the fact that someone did exactly that, and the post remains today w/o violation.

Good luck to you,

Opty