So what's your problem?
His problem is Attention Seeking Behavior. Our problem is how to deal with it and avoid the time-wasting expenditure of responding. Each of us will have to decide individually how or whether to respond to the well-practiced routines used to get attention. Frankly, not responding seems to be the best approach, but it's quite difficult to resist. He has a set of tried and true methods that are continually recycled which have been time-tested and proven to provoke a response.
The reasons for this behavior are not something I would not even attempt to guess, but the methods used are transparent and repetitively employed.
• Straw man replies that pretend to be a response to a post. The most recent example is his response to Manoli's suggestion that we simply not respond, essentially limiting our own speech by resisting our urge to reply. The reply pretended that Manoli suggested something completely different, silencing himself and others, and added the victim playing role for good measure.
• The martyrdom or role playing the victim. Used as a deflection or to get attention by seeking sympathy. Again, you can look at the replies above. This has been repeated time and again with various claims of insult or victimization.
• Making statements and pretending they were made by you when replying. This is a variation of the straw man reply on steroids. Like the straw man reply, it's hard to resist a response to make it clear that statement did not come from you.
• Insults, such as saying that you're lying or claiming your comments or beliefs represent something which would be vile or repulsive to you. Sometimes that's followed by a statement wrapping himself in virtue by contrast. Other examples may be milder than those insults, but still effective in provoking a response. "You really don't believe in freedom of speech" would be one of the midrange examples of this method.
• Circular arguments thru nonresponsive or repetitive replies. This is a regular feature and works by simply ignoring whatever you have said and repeating the same response, or a variation of it, in order to continue provoking replies by one or more responders.
• Explain it to me. Requesting attention and time from others by claiming the lack of personal time to look at a reference, feigned or real confusion (it's often hard to tell for certain), or by other means. Sometimes used as a setup for another circular argument.
There are other methods that are used, but those are the first six that come to mind. The question to ponder, for those of us who have fallen into these traps repeatedly, is how do we want to respond to these prolific and unrelenting methods of posting designed to provoke us into the use of our time in replying to provide the desired constant attention. Any suggestions are welcome.