I’ve always made substantive responses to him. What he actually means is I answered his questions, exactly as he wants. To him anything else is not substantive, including posts directly responding to his assertions and/or behavior. IOW focusing on concrete events in real life that are vastly better documentable that his abortion examples are, for example. Nor are posts that have to do with the subject substantive, unless they solve is pet issues, like conflicting goods, or at least attempt to solve them. IOW he objectifies he values. If a post does what he wants, it gets the objective label ‘substantive’. He functions as an objectivist, while assertion a non-objectivist position.
It should also be noted that, I have made what he calls substantive posts before,which he with regularity forgets. When I make these ‘substantive’ posts, he often does not respond to them, or makes unsupported assertions about them, picking tiny portions of my responses, but ignoring how my examples do not, in any way, confirm his conclusions.
Any response that has substance, according to his criteria, is used as an excuse to repeat things he has said thousands of times. Any post he considers lacking in substance is used as an excuse to do the same.
No one should be fooled into thinking that meeting his criteria leads to suddenly having a respectful conversatoin partner who responds to points made. And he will soon forget that you did this before, and will chastize you for not ever doing it, likely adding in a psychological analysis of this behavior on your part.
I think we have stronger Turing programs than this.