That's one of the best examples of plurium interrogationum I've ever seen-- The Fallacy of Many Questions, a type of red herring and a well-known tactic of the weasel.
It must be frustrating for you that so many bicyclists who ride according to the rules of the road, and have been doing so for decades, have read your writings and cannot be convinced that your social theories aren't a load of cow patties, or that The Forester Conspiracy Theory of History isn't mostly horse hockey.
Some may have even concluded that you're pretty much full of it. They obviously never recieved the memo that you know everything and are always right. They should read your books.
Those who disagree with The Great One must be "bicycle advocates." Or maybe they're "anti-motorists." Or god-forbid, they're bike-lane-loving motorists conspiring to get bicyclists out of the way (perhaps they've read the paper you presented to The American Dream Coalition-- you know the one-- the paper in which you described your plans for keeping bicyclists out of the way).
Or maybe they're in one of the other groups in your list of enemies of vehicular cycling, also called "those with the audacity to disagree with John Forester."
We know they can't be real cyclists.
You really never discuss anything fairly, do you?
Never discuss anything? You should read as well as talk. Genec expressed disagreement with, collectively, what I had written, without giving either any specifics or reasons. So I asked him which parts he disagreed with, and why. What else would have been reasonable?