No, what I meant was...who’s being attacked, how and why?
I went back and read past post to try to see where I misunderstood your question. It seems that in post 579, Cvengr gave his analysis of the delegate count along with his conclusion that it would be very unlikely for Mr. Trump to fail to achieve the 1237 vote majority. In his last sentence, he posed the question: "So what’s with the recent campaign to attack those who seek to win delegates? That’s the system and the system is still working."
I replied to his post with #585 and, as is normal custom, quoted in italics the part of his post I was addressing. I then stated: "If you can get a logical answer to that question, I would sure be interested in hearing it." I went on to make what I considered to be an appeal to unity. Perhaps my expressed desire to get an answer to the question posed by Cvengr was considered as my endorsement of the question. If so, I am sorry for the confusion. As far as what was meant by the original question, I had no doubt. I am not going to try to cite any specific examples or belabor the point, but the general discussion about stealing delegates, subverting the will of the people and forcing a contested convention would make the meaning self evident.
I know feeling are running quite high and it is not my intent to further stir the pot. It is my view that the candidates themselves have to work this out. They will do that by one of them winning a majority in the remaining states, by persuading sufficient non bound delegates to support them, or by some accommodation among themselves. It may not be neat and orderly but it is the same process for everyone and has the advantage of bringing closure to a contentious campaign.
We are not selecting a boy scout leader, anointing a king, or even electing a president. We are selecting one individual from a field of 17 contenders to carry the banner for the Republican Party into the general election where coming in second place will be far more devastating than coming in last place in the nomination process. At this point, I don't care who that person is, I just want him to be intelligent and organized enough to conduct a national campaign, stable enough to withstand the slings and arrows coming his way, quick witted and knowledgeable enough to avoid the inevitable traps he will encounter, realistic enough to not expect favorable treatment by the media or his opponent, and yes, even devious enough to take advantage of any and all openings that come up. I don't want him to be my friend, my hero, or even a role model. I just want him to win, no excuses, just win.
I am sorry I did not answer your original question adequately and know that I have expanded this answer way beyond what was necessary, but, I intend it to be my last post on this subject. While I don't agree with the direction outlined at the beginning of this thread, I do respect the work Mr. Robinson has done on this forum and his right to manage it as he sees fit. I don't intend to leave, just to go silent on this subject.