even in this early stage of an idea (you called it vague yourself) you think so much about credit that the actual idea discussion has died. this has gone as far as using obscene phrases like accusing someone of "being a dick about something", which i ask you to refrain from in the future.
You could of least said something like: "I've been throwing your ideas around and have come up with a solution the admin team is satisfied with. We will continue the discussion in another thread."
sorry, in our world it just doesn't work like this, we have been used to freely discuss each and everything (though more on IRC than here) and there has never been questions who has come up with which idea. none of us has expected such weird reactions to a simple thread split, i think if alex would have known this he would have made such an announcement.
i don't know whether the actual thread split was necessary, i just understood it as this one being with rough brainstorming and the other one trying to sum up the ideas from here and present it in a more sorted way. but that is my interpretation (which is positive, while yours is negativ) so maybe alex' only fault was that he didn't explain his action a bit more instead of leaving it open to interpretation.
but everything afterwards wasn't his fault, the whole credit discussion was just unnecessary, distracting, annoying and has brought us off the original path. it even looks a bit narcissistic.
before my post to the other thread i had read everything on this thread already, and other people can just do the same, it's clearly visible how the idea evolved. but seriously, worrying about how credit should be given before the idea even went into first place of implementation? if you take it that serious post a copyright banner below the idea or something.
otherwise accept that on the internet you throw something in, other people take it, do something with it, change the shape, throw it in somewhere again...that's how ideas evolve. and after a certain period of brainstorming it's time to go into questions how the implementation could look in detail, nothing wrong about that either.