quite interesting. a mischief maker asked a question posted elsewhere on this forum. look at the way his question is formed: now, if one answers this question without being careful the accuser can twist it to his purpose. i don't know if it is incidental cleverness or purposeful deceit, but a classic case all the same. like once a bbc interviewer asked the nigerian religious minister: 'Do you think Islamic punishments are cruel' for example someone answers: 'no' the accuser gets back saying: 'so you cannot answer' probably, adding his bit 'because you are guilty' ---- suppose someone answers: 'yes, it is a lie' the accuser can get back saying: 'barelwis agree that ahmed raza khan insulted the mother..' ---- the reason is because these are two questions rolled into one. 1. can you answer? 2. did imam ahmed raza insult..... which deserve two separate answers. 1. yes, i can answer. 2. no, he did not insult; and hence the accusation is a manifest lie. ---- socrates resorted to it sometimes - even though his reasoning was brilliant otherwise - and you will find examples in plato's republic.