I sure don't: sophistry is false argument.
Once upon a time I thought his posts were somewhat cogent, until he tried spinning a yarn about how $25 million pedestrian bridges were, in his view, grossly overpriced, and he thought they should cost less than half of that. He then weakly tried to rely, by way of example, on a bridge built a decade ago in another country at a much different currency exchange rate. When i42 subsequently posted about two other Canadian bridges costing the same, he then (in high dudgeon) tried to insist that his declarative sentences were merely questions, and proceeded to (rather disappointingly) try equivocating and splitting hairs.
I have little respect for those who flee legitimate arguments by way of dishonesty.
Since then, I have seen him banned for referring to someone as "an asshole" after chronicly bleating in protest whenever he feels someone is rude to him. I have seen him falsely assert that a certain group of migrant workers was mistreated/exploited while building the Canada Line in Vancouver ... when in fact no one from that group was employed in building it. And I've even seen him try to assert that published defamation is "slander" while pontificating about the quasi-legal requirements for satisfying the Ontario Press Council's standards.
In my experience with him, things like these appear to happen all too often.
A good arguer is intellectually honest, consistent, and well informed. A good arguer is factually accurate and cogent.
I've sure found him to be none of these: sophistry doesn't cut it.
