Okay, I'll bite.
In CRM, as well as conversation, I've coined what I call the "Meatloaf Principle". Imagine two statements, both using identical words.
In the first, a man says, "Honey, you know I love your meatloaf." He smiles, nods his head and is sincere.
In the second, a man says, "Honey, you know I love your meatloaf." He speaks with a sarcastic tone and rolls his eyes.

Later, when he's accused of being an ogre, he shrugs and replies, "I don't know what went wrong, I told her I loved her meatloaf". Truth is, any of us would call BS on him.
I'll admit, from watching these forums, Liberator has acquired a questionable reputation by some. In this case, though, he posted a link, as many of us have done, I fail to see the big deal. Could he have fluffed his original statement and said, "Here is a link to some boneyard photos I found". I suppose. I'd prefer the share to never knowing the link existed.
Here is the problem, Phantom chimes in and it doesn't take much of the Meatloaf Principle to pick up on the message when the words "stealing", "brownie points", and "Anyone can ... see" make up his comment. So, were his words technically correct - yes. Was his delivery style unnecessary? IMHO, yes.
A low number of posts doesn't disqualify someone's opinion, but that sort of delivery does.
Ken