All those accusations rather look incredible sad. As if those people are just pissed off that someone tried to criticize their most cherished ideas but they don't know what to say other than ridiculing the opponent based on his inexperience.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ridicule you. I'm not annoyed be the fact that you're criticizing -- if I'm annoyed at all (does 'someone is WRONG on the Internet!' syndrome count as annoyance?). I wasn't bothered by your criticisms of SI when you started posting them. But since then you've been going at it, repeating the same arguments over and over again.

You're trying to create something out of nothing here. Currently available arguments about intelligence explosion are simple. There's no deep math in them (and that's a problem for sure but it cuts both ways — the SIAI don't have a mathy model of intelligence explosion, you don't have mathy arguments that recursive self-improvement will run into fundamental limitations). People are moved by those arguments to various extents. And that's it. We're done. Someone has to come up with a novel insight that will shed additional light on the issue. Until then, people won't change their minds by being exposed to the same arguments even if they come with a brand new rhetorical packaging, heretofore unseen decomposition into bullet points, and a sprinkling of yet-unseen cool quotations.

People will change their minds by being exposed to new background knowledge that isn't a directly about intelligence explosion but causes them to see existing arguments in new light. The sequences are a likely example of that. They will also change their minds for epistemologically insane reasons like social pressure. Both those factors are hard to affect and writing posts on LessWrong seems like one of the worst ways to go about it.

No one likes being told the same thing over and over again in an insistent tone of voice. If you do that, people will get frustrated and want to criticize you. If you give in to your intuitive feeling that you need to rephrase just a little bit and this time they will surely see the light, then you will eventually rephrase your way to bullshit and give those frustrated people ample opportunity to poke holes in your arguments.

I am sick of being accused of being disingenuous, using dark arts and countless other things like asking "rhetorical questions".

Using somewhat different language this is exactly what you declare about yourself. Those things which you describe so casually as your own preferred behaviors are seen by those with a lesswrong mindset as disengenuity and the abuse of the dark arts. That isn't necessarily a bad thing - you'd fit right in at MENSA for example, aside from the entry requirement I suppose - it just isn't received well on lesswrong.