I sit aghast before my computer. This is due is part to my having done a great deal of self-reflection lately. Am I wrong? Am I a bad person? Do I deserve to be hurt, as Prof. Peterson and The Nehor have suggested? Am I merely a "smear-meister," as Jason Bourne has said? I sure hope not. Indeed, if I am as much of a "monster" as these and other individuals have suggested, then perhaps I ought to make a permanent exodus from the messageboard.
My only beef had been your presentation and style along with targeting real life people in a seeming malicious way. If you would simply present the data and leave out the spin and hyperbole you would be better off. I may not agree with some of your topics even so but would have no problem with you presenting what you see as problems in LDS apologetics.
By the way, I am not a fan of SHIELDS and I too was embarrassed by this item about Walter Martin when I saw it years ago. I also thing Novak's rule, while apparent sarcasm, not to positive of a way to approach apologetics. Another things that bothers me about apologetics as well is the tendency that you have noted to focus on the person rather than their material. When I have read defense against Martin I too tired of the constant complaint about his degree. It is enough to point it out but to continually make it the an issue while ignoring other more weighty issues was tiresome. There are many other papers I have read where I found myself wondering when the issues rather than the person would be discussed.