I enjoy both Cofty and Slims' posts.
Cofty's posts over the years have been instrumental in helping me develop critical thinking skills and see how the scientific method has consistently answered many, many questions about the universe and world around us. Regardless of how you read his posts he overwhelmingly refers to well researched, peer reviewed and well accepted material that presents empirical data to support hypothesis and theory.
SBF (IMHO) takes a more philosophical approach to things. Over the time I have been here there have been many encounters where SBF will, essentially, play devil's advocate. He'll extend the conversation beyond the pure scientific method to include more esoteric and abstract thinking.
From my own perspective sometimes SBF raises interesting points and invites thinking out of the box however other times the comments come across as being esoteric, even obtuse, just for the sake of being so. Sometimes this seems to raise strawman arguments. I would also say that it seems as soon as Cofty posts then SBF will post some philosophically based rebuttal. Sometimes this leads to the conversation simply being derailed.
I can see why Cofty would take this as trolling. On the other hand I think that SBF is one of the few posters on here that can argue for a different but still non-theistically based position. It's a shame that the engagement often leads nowhere.
