I assumed that your comment above about the “main verb”, and the way that Hylander ammends my quotes from the Greek by adding the other words in the structure meant that it was customary to quote words in their larger syntactic context. “[A]ll of the pen and paper work” for “all” of the syntactic context was to show that I understood it and to save anybody’s time and effort when replying.
There seemed to be no need to render the lot. The sense of the rest is clear enough and not what troubled me.
With reference to your parable: When a relentlessly demanding diner shows no appreciation of any of the gourmet meals he is served, and only asks for more, it’s understandable if the generous cook who took such painstaking care over their preparation becomes a little exasperated with him.
In section 30, both your “possibilities” are wrong. The prosecution’s position is that Aristogeiton is disqualified from holding office (by virtue of his continuing public indebtedness, for one thing). That’s what makes his having obtained office in the lottery process so dreadful. He obtained it (aor.) while disqualified (perf.). This should be quite clear if you’ve read the speech up to this point.
To revisit 25.12:
ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν μᾶλλον (ἡμῶν δειξάντων τὴν τούτου πονηρίαν) μηδὲν ὑμεῖς φροντίσητε,
τοσούτῳ μείζων ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν αἰσχύνη γενήσεται.
Somehow you fail to discern that τοσούτῳ μείζων balances ὅσῳ μᾶλλον (each having a comparative), and you wrongly construe μαλλον with the genitive absolute. (Hylander’s “"the more you completely fail to take heed” was a translation of ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν μᾶλλον μηδὲν ὑμεῖς φροντίσητε. — μηδεν, by the way, is an inner accusative.)
Such misreading is disturbing, especially in light of similar misunderstanding of sentence structure in other threads of yours, e.g. http://discourse.textkit.com/t/grouping-the-genitives-in-longus-3-9-1/16180/1 I won’t repeat what I wrote there, but there’s clearly something about your reading practice that inhibits your ability to articulate sentences correctly. Something that could help you here is Ed. Fraenkel’s Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes, or more directly study of κῶλα and κόμματα. LSJ gives ancient references for you to follow up on.
Let us say that I am impersonally commenting on the content that Michael has set out, with reference only to myself and the text, rather than replying to anybody in person about it.
What must be Demosthenes’ rhetorical use of the plural of those who might be given the right of speaking in the courts, to actually be a reference to a single person, this Aristogiton and his obtaining an office while disqualified to do so, was indeed quite beyond my limited powers to understand nuanced arguments. Rather than reading between the lines, it seems that I was too easily absorbed in the immediate context of the mooted (and exagerated) state of possible future lawlessness that Demosthenes is describing in his surface meaning.
What is the sense of ἐξελέγχω here? Is Demosthenes saying that he has actually been convicted of those things at law, or that he has been found out previously?