I think it's more of the fact they just haven't read his works. I mentioned to several kjvo that I've read Dean Burgon and their response was along the lines of "So you know how many holes W/H text has, and we do use facts to prove that they are wrong and the kjv is perfect." But I know for a fact they have never actually read them. I told them that Burgon said if you include 1 John 5:7 you call into question the entirety of the New Testament text and they were shocked he said that, along with the fact he attempted his own Greek text.
Kjv only has evolved from believing it's the best translation (which compared to the RV I'd have to agree) to it's the only translation and perfect. But you can see it evolve especially when you compare Dean Burgons and J Edward Hill's works, which are pretty solid (especially Burgons work), compared to let's say Ruckman and Riplinger, which are just a joke. However most people will claim both groups and believe they argued the same thing which they clearly didn't. Even hill who argued that the kjv should be the only translation showed there were certainly poor translations in it and often agreed with the margin writing. It's just plain ignorance imo, either that or they just don't care and try to rely on the fact that you know nothing on the subject and in that case Rickman's arguments sound somewhat convincing.
