Because to do so would be an admission that his "accepted" and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=84217|now admired] technique of "discussion" is dishonest at best.

It is not "debate". It is semantic gamesmanship with deliberate use of emotionally charged "additions" to stated positions...and then dismissal of entire positions over "debates" about the meaning of one unrelated word.

Lather, rinse, repeat. (again and again)

Hate to say I told you so.

And now come the insults and the introduction of fabricated positions.

Oh yeah...forgot about the...trying to prove a completely unrelated point by playing semantic games with a completely idiotic assertion. How could I forget that?