[BostonCard]

The main trust WAS, not were.  Oh, wait, isn't this the Grammer thread?  I'd ask my Grammer but she's not here.

As per the grammar thread, I think there are two ways to parse the sentence:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of [the complaints that were Lombardi's articles] read too much like a post on a fan message board.

or

You are alluding to and agreeing with the [main thrust of the complaints] that werewas Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Of course, if thrust is referring to Lumbardi's articles, then you have a second problem and it should really read:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrusts of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Any way you cut it, though I think the error is more fundamental.  The "were" is probably superfluous.  Given the context, I think CTCard meant to say:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

(In other words, people here are complaining that Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board, or, at least, that is the main thrust of the complaint and you are agreeing with them.)

BC

[BostonCard]

The main trust WAS, not were.  Oh, wait, isn't this the Grammer thread?  I'd ask my Grammer but she's not here.

As per the grammar thread, I think there are two ways to parse the sentence:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of [the complaints that were Lombardi's articles] read too much like a post on a fan message board.

or

You are alluding to and agreeing with the [main thrust of the complaints] that werewas Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Of course, if thrust is referring to Lumbardi's articles, then you have a second problem and it should really read:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrusts of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Any way you cut it, though I think the error is more fundamental.  The "were" is probably superfluous.  Given the context, I think CTCard meant to say:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

(In other words, people here are complaining that Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board, or, at least, that is the main thrust of the complaint and you are agreeing with them.)

BC