[BluffTHIS!]

Because protestant theology is full of internal logical contradictions and Peter has a good knowledge of catholic vs. protestant apologetics and logic to pwn NR. And if you go back through my "Question for Protestants" and "What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get" threads as well as posts in other threads, you will find plenty of examples of NR getting backed into a logical corner by myself and saying something like "I didn't read the rest of your post, maybe tomorrow" and not coming back to it or just not responding at all. So he really isn't debating me fully either, although he doesn't like my sarcastic tone sometimes and that probably furnishes him with an excuse not to respond to something he couldn't rebut anyway.

Now I am of course exaggerating somewhat by calling Peter protestant when he belongs to a dissident sect of catholicism, although I think pegging him as similar to a High Church Anglican is appropriate. And he has a similar absorption with "details" like NR, although he uses them to turn minor theological points into major ones through miscontruing the words of the current catechism and trying to make liturgical details into doctrines, in order to justify refusal of submission to the pope and the teachings of the college of bishops.