George Donnelly Accuses Me of Bad Faith

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/jim-davidson-why-two-libertarian-parties-are-better-than-one

Asking people to confront my arguments isn't bad faith.  If there's bad faith here, it's you pretending not to see the asymmetry I identified.  I'll repeat it.  1) Davidson criticized the LP as being led by "corrupt vermin".  2) I gently satirized the BTP because scandal pushed Davidson to the brink of resignation, and his replacement a couple weeks later promptly resigned.  3)  You chided me for gentle satire against the BTP's leadership, but didn't chide Davidson for vicious calumny against the LP's leadership.  That's obviously asymmetric.

If Davidson calling me "scum" and the LP leadership "corrupt vermin" isn't throwing mud, then I don't know what is.

It's a clumsy fallacy of the excluded middle to claim that either 1) all parties must be all things to all people, or 2) no party can be criticized as limiting its members' choices if those members are free to patronize competing parties.  It strikes me as bad faith for you to thus evade my point that Knapp clearly didn't trust the BTP membership not to screw up its platform the way that he thinks the LP membership had just screwed up the LP platform.

Yes, there are more formal ways that the LP could have endorsed the Paul/Nader/McKinney/Baldwin/Barr program.  It strikes me as bad faith for you to thus evade my question, which I repeat: can you explain to me precisely how in the marketplace of ideas the BTP is offering any disagreement with principles in the platform of the Party of Principle?