user10100: I understand that buddha taught: "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'", but don't forget that buddha taught "for it is thus that the Blessed One's following is nurtured: through mutual admonition, through mutual rehabilitation.", too, right?
@dhammadhatu wrote:

It is one of the **greatest errors & corruptions** to regard "sankhara" (2nd condition) as "kamma" because sankhara (in SN 12.2) is defined (per MN 44) as the in & out breathing (kaya sankhara); initial & discursive thought (vaci sankhara); and perception & feeling (citta sankhara). Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains this very well in the meditative examples in his book The Shape of Suffering. 

I describe his error here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24307/10100
Then @Andrei Volkov told me:

Please avoid directly disputing other answers like you did here ("error like @dhammadhatu done"). This has a danger of leading to a flamewar. Instead, imagine that you are writing an encyclopedia article - you would not debate with other books if you were writing an encyclopedia, right? Just stay neutral and objective in your tone&style, and this will lead to better reception by other users and will avoid debates. I just took liberty and removed all references to dhammadhatu in your answer, I hope this did not damage your answer too much.


Why no one still not notice, what I letting you see?
Why he can do, but I can not?
Why no one advise him?
Why you all look like "debating with the tipitaka-distorter is
worst, but tipitaka's fact-distorting is no problem, like
encycropedia analysis?
"We use the same word "error", right?
And he did it first before I did, right?
We still see his "error" word, there, right?
And the pāli that I quote to you is not the same as he wrote, right?
It is his error, not tipitaka's error, right?
My evidences from tipitaka are not proper enough?
His evidences from tipitaka are proper enough?

I don't know your culture, but in Thailand and Burma, tipitaka distorting is the worst one action in buddhist society.

user254: Some of the policies on this site are intended to:

Allow everyone (any user) to post an answer
Without arguments between two users
Without arguments between different sects

Therefore:

You're welcome to post a correct answer
You're welcome to explain why your answer is correct
You should, please, avoid criticising other users by name


For example, imagine the following question on a travel site:

Question: How far is it from Paris to London?

And imagine (for example) that you see that someone has answered this already, as follows:

It's 30 km. The easiest way to go is just to walk.
-- John

The following new answer wouldn't be permitted, because it's not only useless but it breaks the rule against criticising other users:

John's answer is wrong.

The following is worse (because it criticises John himself and not just John's answer):

John is mistaken.

The following answer is better (because it answers the OP's question), but it still wouldn't be permitted or needs more editing (because it names John):

John's answer is wrong. It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.

The following is better, good enough -- it doesn't criticise, and it's useful (it answers the question):

It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.

If you want to correct misinformation in John's answer, you can do that but without mentioning John by name:

It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time. Or if you're driving you can catch a ferry e.g. from Calais. You can't just walk it though, not just because it's far but also because of the English Channel.

Even better if you add references so that readers can verify whether your answer is reliable:

It's nearly 500 km by road and ferry, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.


In summary I think you can correct misinformation if you see it; but please do that without criticising other users.
The rules about "mutual admonition" which you quoted aren't applicable on this site.

10100: <p>I understand that buddha taught: <a href="http://84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=22&amp;A=4301&amp;Z=4316&amp;eng=accesstoinsight_than" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'"</a>, but don't forget that buddha taught <strong><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati.html#sg-12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"for it is thus that the Blessed One's following is nurtured: through mutual admonition, through mutual rehabilitation.", too, right?</a></strong></p>

<p>@dhammadhatu wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is one of the **greatest errors & corruptions** to regard "sankhara" (2nd condition) as "kamma" because sankhara (in SN 12.2) is defined (per MN 44) as the in &amp; out breathing (<em>kaya sankhara</em>); initial &amp; discursive thought (<em>vaci sankhara</em>); and perception &amp; feeling (<em>citta sankhara</em>). Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains this very well in the meditative examples in his book The Shape of Suffering. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I describe his error here: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24307/10100">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24307/10100</a></p>

<p>Then @Andrei Volkov told me:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Please avoid directly disputing other answers like you did here ("error like @dhammadhatu done"). This has a danger of leading to a flamewar. Instead, imagine that you are writing an encyclopedia article - you would not debate with other books if you were writing an encyclopedia, right? Just stay neutral and objective in your tone&amp;style, and this will lead to better reception by other users and will avoid debates. I just took liberty and removed all references to dhammadhatu in your answer, I hope this did not damage your answer too much.</p>
</blockquote>

<ol>
<li>Why no one still not notice, what I letting you see?</li>
<li><strong>Why he can do, but I can not?</strong></li>
<li>Why no one advise him?</li>
<li><strong>Why you all look like "debating with the tipitaka-distorter is
worst, but tipitaka's fact-distorting is no problem, like
encycropedia analysis?</strong></li>
<li><em>"We use the same word "error", right?</em></li>
<li>And he did it first before I did, right?</li>
<li><strong>We still see his "error" word, there, right?</strong></li>
<li>And the pāli that I quote to you is not the same as he wrote, right?</li>
<li>It is his error, not tipitaka's error, right?</li>
<li>My evidences from tipitaka are not proper enough?</li>
<li>His evidences from tipitaka are proper enough?</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>I don't know your culture, but in Thailand and Burma, tipitaka distorting is the worst one action in buddhist society.</strong></p>
 254: <p>Some of the policies on this site are intended to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Allow everyone (any user) to post an answer</li>
<li>Without arguments between two users</li>
<li>Without arguments between different sects</li>
</ul>
<p>Therefore:</p>
<ul>
<li>You're welcome to post a correct answer</li>
<li>You're welcome to explain why your answer is correct</li>
<li>You should, please, avoid criticising other users by name</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>For example, imagine the following question on a travel site:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Question: How far is it from Paris to London?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And imagine (for example) that you see that someone has answered this already, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It's 30 km. The easiest way to go is just to walk.</p>
<p>-- John</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The following new answer wouldn't be permitted, because it's not only useless but it breaks the rule against criticising other users:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>John's answer is wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The following is worse (because it criticises John himself and not just John's answer):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>John is mistaken.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The following answer is better (because it answers the OP's question), but it still wouldn't be permitted or needs more editing (because it names John):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>John's answer is wrong. It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The following is better, good enough -- it doesn't criticise, and it's useful (it answers the question):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you want to correct misinformation in John's answer, you can do that but without mentioning John by name:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time. Or if you're driving you can catch a ferry e.g. from Calais. You can't just walk it though, not just because it's far but also because of the English Channel.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even better if you add references so that readers can verify whether your answer is reliable:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It's <a href="https://www.google.fr/maps/dir/Paris/London,+UK/@50.1642661,0.2663308,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47e66e1f06e2b70f:0x40b82c3688c9460!2m2!1d2.3522219!2d48.856614!1m5!1m1!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75:0x52963a5addd52a99!2m2!1d-0.1277583!2d51.5073509!3e0?hl=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nearly 500 km by road and ferry</a>, about <a href="https://www.trainline.eu/train-times/paris-to-london" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2 hours by train</a> or one hour flying time.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>In summary I think you can correct misinformation if you see it; but please do that without criticising other users.</p>
<p>The rules about &quot;mutual admonition&quot; which you quoted aren't applicable on this site.</p>
