Andrew, I love the title of your post. 

If I may offer some feedback, I believe that what is being perceived as "agressiveness" with some preterists is in fact excitement to share with the community something relevant and something one perceives as crucial or critical in his or her understanding of Scripture.  I submit that the reason that some preterists may react to criticism the way they do is because simply many have been literally hunted down as heretics by their churches and even families; when they are being accused of heresy, gnosticism, you name it, it becomes rather difficult to interact on a level that is conducive to further fruitful conversation.  I would personally expect better treatment of preterists from most people here, but again, fault can be found with everyone.

Also, one does not have to attach a label called "preterism" to his eschatology in order to hold to a highly contextualized eschatology placed in the first century.  I’ve met so many people who were already there and had no idea there was a name for this thing. Whether it’s Eusebius, Wright, King, McLaren, DeMar…even you…you guys all contributed to the shaping of an eschatology which is fundamentally preterist in nature.  This is not something to be proud of or be defensive of - it’s a matter of what you said, the development of an emerging eschatology that is relevant to our families, our communities, our churches. Congrats…you are a preterist…fundamentally! :)

Preterism is very non-systematic and organic by its very nature - it cannot be otherwise.  This new eschatology we are striving for cannot be systematic, otherwise it will fail to be relevant. It has to be an organic eschatology, post-preterist, post-emergent, post-modern, post-dispensational in nature, otherwise it will again become an elitist system that is only relevant to seminarians (no offense to any of the ThDs frequenting OST), disconnected from people’s hearts and lives.

Hope that helps, and by the way, I dislike the word "preterism" as much as you. Unfortunately we do have to use some sort of descriptors when we discuss those complex issues.