You might want to note that Marc Stevens' suggested defenses are not "freemens' defenses," as you incorrectly imply here, and as Barry Cooper incorrectly stated and implied. The very fact that you are just believing what Barry initially said without any investigation of your own is exactly why Stevens responded the way he did.

Additionally, you're right that calling Stevens' work "crazy" is also an ad hominem that's unlikely to ever lead to constructive "collaboration." That Barry then defends your comment here could be taken as implying that Barry still thinks Stevens' work amounts to a "freeman" defense (which it is not).

To ever be taken at one's word, one must first stop mischaracterizing one's opponents' beliefs. Until that clearly happens, it won't surprise me if Stevens avoids Barry and takes an adversarial approach to responding to him.

It saddens me to say this, because I think they both have legitimate things to offer the freedom movement, and to specific defendants trying to avoid unjust punishment.