This dispute - CJ v. Geller and Spencer - is so ridiculous that I suspect both sides are accusing each other tongue-in-cheek as they know it is good for generating response. Obviously, the Geller/Spencer side is making the point that “association” takes many forms, from mere ‘linking”, to talking with, to appearing in the same gathering, to joining in the same activities, to agreement with, to partnership, to marriage… They may be irritated by CJ’s rather puritan scolding of their more exaggerated stances (Nirther conspiracies). Some of those people they claim CJ has thrown under the bus, like Coulter and Fallaci, do scorn and rage as their shtick. I totally disagree with Coulter on God, but I admire both women for not being mealy-mouthed.
I think Spencer is having a good time “insulting” CJ, because he really did take offense at being “associated” (taken in a sense towards the ‘partnership’ end of the scale) with Nazis. Any fair-minded reading of Spencer shows him to be the sworn enemy of Nazism in all its forms, including Islamism. I have never disagreed with CJ, or Spencer (except for belief in God), on matters of substance. In the matter of style, I prefer CJ’s dry comments (“Give them a state”) , but sometimes enjoy full-blown invective, or dripping irony. The dispute is really about style. Style doesn’t hurt the cause, this kind of vituperation about style does.