By Years: Andres Metsoja

The style of discourse is formal and detailed, often focusing on legal and technical arguments. The tone is critical and at times combative, especially concerning infringements upon property rights, utilizing highly charged emotional language (e.g., "terror," "nationalization"). It employs vivid, real-life examples (such as the prohibition on cutting down a tree or high connection fees) and rhetorical questions to underscore the illogical nature and systemic flaws of the government's actions.

The discourse is predominantly critical and insistent, especially concerning government actions and decisions affecting rural areas, occasionally employing emotional expressions ("it's really getting on my nerves," "utter nonsense"). The style balances legal and technical detail (when clarifying the content of draft laws) with real-life examples and anecdotes (the Pärnu border guard station building, the saga of the rooster) to illustrate deficiencies in the legal environment. Rhetorical questions are frequently used, and there is a direct appeal to "common sense."