One fundamental difficulty is Chambers’ refusal to converse. Instead of answering the questions that people really ask of ex-gays — thereby fostering a true conversation — Chambers and New Man rigged a series of irrelevant and evasive questions that purposely fuel adversarialism.”
–
I think just mentioning all that solves the problem Mike - at least as much as possible. It shows that the unnecessary-promotion of ‘adversarialism’ is essentially one-directional.

By refusing to converse in any meaningful way, we are left with no choice but to interpret, extrapolate, or “translate” what they mean, from what they say.

So I think a thoughtfully worded disclaimer — like what you’ve said above — makes it perfectly possible to at least minimize any notion of “he-said-she-said bickering.”
–
Actually, come to think of it, you hit the nail on the head with that observation. We’ve been put in a position of adversary for the express purpose of framing ANY response we may have as being adversarial.

One fundamental difficulty is Chambers’ refusal to converse. Instead of answering the questions that people really ask of ex-gays — thereby fostering a true conversation — Chambers and New Man rigged a series of irrelevant and evasive questions that purposely fuel adversarialism.

I still have to write Part III of this article: The questions that New Man would have asked if it were committed to conversation and truth-finding.

“By dismissing spiritual neighbors and fellow church members as “missing,” Chambers purposely strives to ostracize and disfellowship them.”
–
Some of this stuff is seriously well put Mike. I appreciate it.
-Patrick

so they have over time adapted (evilotion in action) to different boogie men. its basic propaganda. hitler used the jews, facists had the communists, the communists had the corporations etc.