The Testimony of the Man"if a man is not willing or able to defend his own arguments, he is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly" (source)
Thrice (at least) the man's arguments were rebutted by the present author(link) (link) (link) (link)
The man's unwillingness or inability to defend his own arguments was demonstrated(link).
Thus, according to the man, the man is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly.
On the other hand, the man finds plenty of pretexts (link) (link) (link) to mention a certain elder whom he claims has "ignore[d] literally a dozen or more of my in-depth critiques of his work" (source).
Finally, from the same man comes the claim: "Two times refuting his charges is more than enough. He wouldn't deserve any further attention or publicity if he wants to engage in a one-way monologue / preaching exercise. He can always preach to his buddies. Why should I waste my valuable time?" (source)
One assumes that the elder about whom the man is fond of complaining has reached a similar conclusion. Indeed, the man himself states (speaking about the elder):
"If he chooses not to respond to a critique (or to my two challenges to engage in debate in his chat room), it's because his critics are idiots. If I choose to not respond to some [opposing] screed, it is because I am supposedly an idiot and a coward. See how it works (the [other side] is always at fault, any way you look at it)? Very convenient double standard there, isn't it?" (source) (side identification and link to the two challenges omitted)
The present author notes that this creates an interesting (is it triple or quadruple?) standard.