In my opinion, Jim does not fully grasp the meaning of the term 'rhetorical question'. This is why, when he for some reason decides to disagree with my pointing out this feature of his style of writing, he claims that I am engaging in a semantic argument.

I was looking at his style of writing because another poster raised the topic, suggesting, validly I felt, that Jim's style was provocative. Eg Vic Smith 03 May, 12.04 pm.   Another poster commented on the way Jim addresses us. Somebody else described Jim's approach as 'bluster'. The point has generally been made that Jim tends to write as if he were expressing facts when he is setting forth opinions.

Therefore, I - and some other posters - have been noting some of the stylistic features of Jim's posts. These are often features associated with persuasive and expressive uses of language, rather than factual statements. I have noted emotive imagery based on excrement. We have emotive nouns such as 'dross'. His use of the term 'excuses' has been noted by somebody further up the thread.

I think the point that Jim's language is provocative was well-made. And I think his metaphors based on battle and conflict demonstrate that this is how he conceives of the thread. I do not know who he thinks he will persuade by this somewhat aggressive approach. But it won't be me.