1. Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade.

   When correspondents refuse to give straight answers to straight questions, and instead start hiding behind the political tactics of diversion, evasion or disingenuousness, the use of rhetorical forms to draw out the answers sought, is neither trickery nor ridicule. Just good debate.

   Without debate, a site as this would be nothing more than an interactive, crowd sourced, memory prompt and FAQ. The human component utterly replaceable by google's search algorithms.

   Each would state their opinion; each would retain their opinion unchallenged. Noone would learn a damn thing.

   I love having my opinions challenged. The things I learn that way are usually far more important than anything I get from following one person's, or book's, take on the world verbatim.

   But I admit it does bug me when people make assertions and then won't back them up with proof. Or at least drop the matter quietly. Under those circumstances, especially when there seems to be a genuine clash of conception, the refusal to try and reach a common understanding, even if only that they agree to differ, leaves me with an unresolved dilemma.

   And that irritates me beyond all else. I'd far rather be proved wrong, than be left hanging, or going around in circles, when my gut tells me that there is something important in the other person's argument that either I'm missing, or they are misconceiving; but I am left unsure as to which.

   These situations can in most cases, be so easily resolved, by showing what they mean, rather than describing it, in their own, particular environmentally influenced and non-transferable language.

   In short, on this site that means returning to the cry of the '90s: Show us the code!

2. Straw man: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

   I have on occasion, deliberately used a straw man in an attempt to get the other party to clarify their argument. But not nearly as often as I am accused of doing so.

   The problem with discerning a straw man, from the genuine misinterpretation of your words, is that you think that because you understand them, everyone else will.

3. and ridiculizes the opponent: I don't have opponents here. And I do not set out to ridicule anyone.

   I will on occasion attempt to prod another monk into clarifying their statements when they seem reluctant to do so. But I never do this to newbies. And never for sport.

   The tactic is always reserved solely for those a) I genuinely believe can teach me something; b) who have previously demonstrated robust personalities and debating skills. And purely as an attempt reach a resolution.

There. It's on the record. Make of it what you will.