Evans: "...if you insist on having a problem with the concept of someone being a professional anti-cult activist and not doing the work I do for free, I feel you ought to explain why you don't also have a problem with others who make a living from bad situations."
It continues to amaze me that he doesn't understand how bad this kind of stance makes him look. He tries to word it to put the onus on his critics, by saying that they are the ones who "have a problem" with him and not with other activists. Who says that his critics don't also have a problem with others who monetize their activism? What if their problem isn't with him making a bit of money from activism, but that he's a greedy asshole who mistreats others and seems to care more about his wallet than their needs?
Also, you have only to make a simple substitution to point out another problem with this approach:
"If you insist on having a problem with the concept of someone being an abusive spouse, I feel you ought to explain why you don't also have a problem with others who abuse their spouses."
The idea that you need to condemn everyone in order to condemn one person does not invalidate the accusation. It also means that, if someone does take the position he requests, they are now able to condemn him and he would have to answer to them, since they met his criteria. Is he okay with that?