The dictionary definition of a straw man argument is arguing !A and then
concluding !B, where A is not a precondition of B.
What I'm doing is considering slight variations on what you're discussing
in order to figure out if *they* have any merit (since your claim of some
peculiar form of non-malicious dishonesty is incoherent I haven't wasted
any time considering that case at all).
My apologies for *daring* to consider tangential cases at all. I wasn't
aware I wasn't allowed to discuss such things.
(Your claims of 'exposure' reek of paranoia. In fact pretty much
everything you've posted reeks of paranoia.)