Sometimes it might appear that he only does that in the attempt to prove himself right and them wrong. I've certainly got that impression from time to time.

But that's not the end of the story. He has an ability to question what might appear to be a valid defense of Rawat's claims and counter them with a sharpness of intellect that (possibly) is a consequence of his chosen career as a lawyer.

Lawyers are trained to deal with the ways that people attempt to defend their points of view. And, as a lawyer, Jim has often come up with responses to the standard premie apologia (though it's presented in a variety of ways), which cut through the myopic bullshit, and get to the heart of the matter.

Some of his recent responses to GOK make this transparent.

Different kind of respect? You're right. It is a form of respect. But of us (the less-verbose majority) is it truly respectful to collude with the premie mind-set by tacitly condoning it?

That would imply that a premie POV unchallenged is a POV proven.