You are not forced to read it , some people may only catch it at tail end etc.

Would it not be equally odd to compare a fund that has a universe of about 100 potentially qualifying stocks, of which it selects 30, to a benchmark that has 4000?

Can't see why anyone seriously cares what is posted here as it won't affect FS prices in any way. I am not sure that using words like "drool", "ignore" and "just jealous" to describe people who reasonably and politely disagree with an opinion (about a fund, of all things) add much to the quality of the discussion. I am sure that we are all very happy and pleased for those who had the good fortune to buy FS in its early days.

"Anger arousal stems from a perceived threat: to our emotional or physical well-being; to our resources, such as our time, energy, things, and wealth; or to our loved ones. An important aspect of this definition is the keyword “perceived.” As such, we may feel threatened even when no real threat exists, or we may see the threat as being greater than it really is. Consequently, we may impulsively experience overly intense anger, when we perceive the danger to be greater than it really is."
[Psychology Today]

I was merely quoting the words of what some FS supporters have said in the past 24 hours about those who fail to share their opinions. I haven't used those words myself and I haven't accused you of anything.

The S&P500 is predominantly based on a fairly small number of US mega-caps, as is FS, so although not perfect it seems to me like a reasonable comparison.

My thinking is that the only really relevant benchmark is where you would place your money if it was not in Fundsmith, which will be different for each individual, and will consequently generate different conclusions. As such, without meaning any disrespect, this debate seems a little pointless.

Personally, I have held FS since I started investing, and continue to do so because:

a) it consistently outperforms my global tracker and with lower volatility
b) it outperforms the other funds I'm aware of that might compete for the 'defensive global' slot that I like to have in my portfolio

If another investor does not share the priorities implicit in (a) and (b) above they will naturally come to a different conclusion about FS's suitability. There is no 'right' answer to this debate.

The way I deal with Fundsmith is that I limit my exposure to 10% of assets. It forces me to look for other sources of return and spreads risk. It also lessens the effect of their management fee.