My last comment on this thread: This is a house building forum and everyone should be taken seriously,
The OP was also taken seriously at the beginning.
The first comparison with the pigeons only means: "That's just how nature is. If a wild animal causes damage (in any form), you cannot immediately blame the builder for it. Whether it is pigeons (probably the smallest damage), woodpeckers or martens."
He probably wouldn't hold his car manufacturer responsible either if a marten rampages in the engine compartment.
....and "money shark" is in my eyes the milder form... well... luckily I don't know any of you personally... that's what the internet is for... just don't look anyone in the face and be confronted with the truth.
Personally, as a banker, I also felt disturbed by the term "money shark." This term is inherently negative and refers to someone who stops at nothing for money. I think this is indeed an insult.
Do you think that the little cashier at the checkout makes millions? Or the person handling your loan? Or the controller / accountant / risk management employee / payment transactions staff / back office employee / etc.?
I also get annoyed when people speak in general of THE BANKERS who earn millions and throw wild parties. Why I am bothered by this: It is a small minority of investment bankers (and only a small part of those) who earn millions and have thrown such parties. Every "normal" banker shakes their head at this and could vomit – because they find it impossible as well and are lumped together with them.
It is the same as if you portray all house building companies as fraudsters, call every doctor a charlatan/botcher producing malpractice one after another, say every IT guy is a hacker, and every baker mixes sawdust into the bread dough.
Last but not least:
If you were to meet in person and look him in the face, you would probably meet a nice person with whom you could have a good conversation.
Look at the number of his posts here and the number of endorsements. This should show, in my opinion, that he is engaged here and helps as much as possible. He has not shown any provocative/offensive behavior here.
However, I agree with you on one thing: At some point one should focus again on the original question – if participants are still interested in doing so.