In defense of Paul Baker

Hello everybody,
I can't believe what I'm reading !
On The Education Forum, there is a thread started by David Lifton, titled "O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie".
Several members joined the discussion.
The topic changed progressively.
Apart from the fact that some members were their usual selves (Ian Kingsbury with his completely dull, empty posts, or Lee Farloser, with his arogance, his verbal abuse, his intellectual narrow-mindedness) I have noticed something of note.
One member stood out : Paul Baker.
I didn't really know him beforehand. I had not realized how good he was. I don't know if he knows me. I don't know what he might think of me. That doesn't matter. All I know is that he is good. Very good.
He is a sensible person. Clever. Reasonable. Logical. Witty.
He knows to separate facts from fiction.
He knows what science is.
In front of him, Jim DiEugenio proved himself foolish. He was litterally "punished".
Paul Baker's intelligent observations were met with ridiculous statements by Jim DiEugenio, whose legendary close-mindedness was there for all to see.
Well, all that is not surprising.
But wait...
Today, James DiEugenio broke the world record of bad faith !
He had the guts to write (I quote) : "I think this is it for me and Paulie. He is simply not worth talking to."
My God ! Don't make me laugh !
The truth is : that is a total cop-out !
James DiEugenio was afraid. He realized that Paul Baker was better than him. He realized he was being defeated. He realized he was losing. He had to find an escape.
Another person would have acknowledged they had been wrong. Not James DiEugenio, who will probably be remembered as the most close-minded JFK-assassination researcher of all times.
James DiEugenio could not handle Paul Baker. So he ran away.
He found the lamest excuse in the book.
Is that hypocrisy, or self-deception ? Or cowardice ?
Even worse : DiEugenio then wrote (I quote) : "And, to be frank, I don't know why the mods let him on anymore." !?!?!?!? In other words, if a member wins the argument, then he must be fired. If DiEugenio is right, his opponent may stay. If he is wrong, his opponent must leave.
That's James DiEugenio.
The problem is : he is always wrong.
At any rate, he should be ashamed of himself, tonight.