Level of explanation/simplification required for allegation ?

Is there a citeable rule, to take the guesswork out of this issue ?
In my jurisdiction 'vague and embarrassing' allegations may
be objected to.

You've heard medical or other specialist discussing, were we are
unqualified to evaluate their assertions -- we need simplification.

When you and I discuss a disagreement, there are mechanisms to
adjust our level of explanation, so that if the one party does'nt
follow a conclusion from a 'common cause', then the 'extra dots'
can be filled in.  We can eg. directly ask: "do you understand that ?"

Q. is it correct that in Court no party may ask the Court: "do you
understand that ?"

Q. would it be true that, especially a self-representing lay-person 
has little means of getting feedback that the Court needs a more 
simplified explanation ?

I had the following NewsGroup-dialog with a respondent who has
substantial legal experience/knowledge and is no fool [although
it seems to me that with sufficient legal training some can become
foolish].

Q. does my explanation, need to be more detailed, or is s/he just
yanking my chain ?

Instead of writing:
1. The record shows that the appeal judge stated that "he wanted 
his day in court.." -- about me.
2. And since I wanted my day in Court, which is repeatedly shown
in the record as my motive for escalating the 'wrong municipal 
charges dispute' to a Court hearing, my missing of the issued
summons and consequent default judgement was not intentional.
3. This, because if a person "wanted his day in Court" and had 
made elaborate arrangements to provoke a Court hearing, he
would not rationally miss such "day in Court".
4. This because a. "wanted his day in Court" and 
   b. "deliberately avoiding his day in Court" are mutually 
  contradictory.
5. And further,  mutually contradictory assertions are generally
   not [intended to be] accepted in law.
6. because .........

I wrote:-
> > YES AGAIN !! my motive to withhold was to force the matter 
> > to a Court hearing, which is acknowledged in writing by the
> > appeal judges: "..he WANTED his day in Court to show..".
> 
And nospam@isp.com countered:-
> The appeals judges from whom you (misleadingly) quote an excerpt 
> did say that you had _claimed_, years earlier, that you were trying by
> your deliberate defaults in paying what you (admittedly!) owed to
> precipitate a court test of your claim that you did not owe a portion
> of what you were billed for.  HOWEVER, those same judges, in AFFIRMING
> the DENIAL by the lower court of your motion for relief from the 
> underlying judgment granted against you on DEFAULT because you did 
> not bother even to appear in the lawsuit in which that judgment was
> granted much less actually attempt to defend (let alone establish that
> you had a defense) said they were perplexed by your said (VERY)
> belatedly made such claim.
> 
> In truth, the appellate panel indicated politely but nonetheless very
> clearly that they did not believe you in this connection, i.e., if one
> will forgive resort to the technical-legal term to describe this sort
> of thing, that they quite evidently believed that you were lying in
> this respect.

The above respondent normally introduces a number of half truths which 
are irrelevant to the particular issue being discussed at the time [is that 
a common law-technique, or a nervous condition of the respondent ?].
But here, the issue is whether the hearing default was deliberate. 
Please just extract that issue, and explain if/how this respondent's 
counter argument has merit.

My reading of the record, indicates that neither the magistrate nor 
appeal Courts considered that the attendance default was deliberate, 
but I need to be confident of this, so that I can concentrate on the 
merits of my defence and ignore heckler's allegations.

== TIA.