I can answer that.  I'm one of the people in question, sort of.  I've been taking long hiatuses from the forum when I can't stand certain posters any more.  Roder's one of them.  Prior to this conversation he had spent quite some time on my 'do not engage' list and he's back on it.  He can't play nice so I refuse to play with him.

Over the last several years, I've had multiple conversations with Roder (one in this thread!) in which I've said to him, "My problem with you is that when you interact in debate, you come from the position that if people don't agree with you, it's not because their arguments are valid or you've not made your point clearly enough, it's because they are not smart enough to see things your way."

His response is ALWAYS, "You're just misunderstanding me.  You should understand me better and then you wouldn't think that."  My response to that has always been, "And if you're consistently misunderstood, maybe the problem's not other people."

I leave periodically because it's impossible to have a reasonable, intelligent conversation without someone coming in and pissing all over it, then getting snarky when people either ignore him or refute his points.  Roder's certainly not the only person who does it, but he's the only person I never see do anything else.

As to the dissection of my character posted earlier in this thread, I might gently submit that there is a vast difference between my preferred approach of, "You seem to have misunderstood me; let me try to say that in a different way," and "You seem to have misunderstood me.  Why are you so stupid?"

I'm going to shoot for the moon and make an assumption that this was about my post.  If I'm wrong, feel free to black out this entire post from your mind.

The problems I described concerning your attitude in debate and Roder's attitude in debate aren't comparitive.  I wasn't comparing you to Roder, nor stating that you had similar problems in debate as Roder does, simply saying that if problems are to be had with Roder's rather particular debating attitude, then then there's plenty of attention to be directed the other way as well.  Your sass and Roder's forwardness are nothing alike each other.  Its like comparing apples and oranges. 
Its not however, a difference of "understanding individual's method" and "pigheaded child's method" either, as wonderfully simple and easy as that'd make things.  Both attitudes, as far as I'm concerned, are far from ideal to take during a debate.  An attitude of Badger-trademark sass can get under the skin of someone who's trying to be taken seriously.  When couching a serious argument, said sass can come across as petulant, or condescending, and at its worst, just a little rude. 
Its not nearly as forward or direct as insinuations of lack of intelligence or the like, but it certainly doesn't help things.  And this is noticable.  Badger I'm sure you must know this at least a little.  I don't hold it against you, and it'd be far from me to ask you to -stop-.  Especially since if I ever had the gall to do such a presumptuous fucking thing, I'd have to take issue with the attitudes of every other person in the debate forum.
The point is that problems with attitude are everywhere.  And I was chalking up Roder's particular attitude in debate to such a thing.  Everyone contributed to the shitfest, the debate itself even contributed to the shitfest, and by word, no one then ought to be to blame for it.

((also I was being baffled by the fact that in spite of your's and Roder's constant assertions that you were misunderstanding each other earlier, that you were essentially arguing the exact same thing, while believing otherwise...which as far as I know, is something that if left unnoticed can turn ugly))

Evidently though the consensus that its a little more than that.  I personally haven't seen a problem with Roder's attitude, then again I don't spend a whole lot of time in debate.  I've only ever spent time pontificating with him over philosophy, and the only actual debate I had with him involved GM foods, where I started with an argument that General Motors should not try to make food.

In other words, I don't really have anything to add to this whole thing.

Maybe I was wrong.  As I saw it, they were both arguing one side of the argument while accusing each other of arguing the other, however, which you must see can be problematic.  I haven't gone back and read it in a while...perhaps I am and was mistaken.

But I still stand by the rest of what I say. 

Insulting?  I wasn't aiming to do anything of the sort.  You may be a little mistaken as to my intentions.

I don't ever speak to intentions, because, frankly, I have no way to know them and subscribe fully to the school of thought that says in communication, they don't matter.

I was intending to apply for a job today, but I didn't.  So as far as the company is concerned, my intentions mean nothing.  I could call you a necrophilic puppy raper and INTEND for you to take it as a joke.  If, however, you in fact are a necrophilic puppy raper and feel that my intention was to out you, I can't gainsay that.   Reader reaction = reality for them.   Doesn't matter what you intended to convey, what you did convey is more important.

It's not about being well and truly offended.  If two people have been discussing something for several pages and one of them says to the other "You know, after rereading our conversation I'm forced to admit that our positions are very similar with the exception of x, which you call y.  At this point that's similar enough for me."  However it's phrased, is fine.  For one to say to the other "I don't see why we're debating  this, we're saying the same thing," is insulting because it shows a.) a basic lack of respect for the opponent that they would keep arguing when everyone is clearly in agreement, and b.) a basic lack of comprehension or even attempting to comprehend the other person's point.

To come at it from outside the argument compounds that level of offensiveness, because it says that both sides are morons who can't even see that they're really agreeing with each other.

I know it can look that way from the outside, but even when someone says "Huh, you know I"ve been arguing with you tooth and nail but I now see that when you say x you mean y and why your confused that I've been keeping it up this long" they aren't really saying "we're saying the same thing," rather, they've just gotten tired of a stalemate and are cutting their losses.

From the Democrat Convention schedule