There is nothing faulty about pointing out what preterism is any more than there’s something faulty about pointing out what pelagianism is.
And, then there’s the argument of “poisoned fruit.”
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
But don't label it as "partial preterism" because it isn't.
And contrary to what blue-duncan was trying to tell you, the difference between partial and full preterism is clear and simple, unlike the many, varied and confusing beliefs listed under the heading of dispensationalism.
Orthodox preterism did not "fall from the tree" of the Hymenaen heresy. You are engaging in faulty logic and debaters tricks. I suspect the reason why is that you have no arguments of your own, so, like Engelsma and MacArthur, you resort to clouding the issues by insisting black is white and up is down.