Proof by Intimidation definition

Hello! This is actually a comment about the definition of the fallacy "Proof by Intimidation".  It is a little confusing to me the way it is written. This is what I understood when I read the definition:
1)Making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience into accepting it
2)intimidating your audience into accepting an argument without evidence (which I think since it doesn't have evidence we could say it is a "claim" or "proposition" or "assertion")
3)being intimidated to accept an argument/claim without evidence
4)being intimidated to question the authority or the a priori assumptions of the person making the argument.

Did I understand it correctly? The syntax of the definition as it is, is a bit confusing, in the "accepting an argument without evidence" part. What do you think?

Also, I would like to know the definition of the words "argument", "conclusion", "claim", "assertion", because sometimes in the definitions of the fallacies, these terms are used interchangeably and their meaning is not clear to me. For example, in page 1 an "argument" is said to be "made up of premises and a conclusion. The premises can also be referred to as reasons, supporting evidence, or claims". In the definition of the "Proof by Intimidation" as it is now, it says "accepting an argument without evidence". If the argument does not have evidence, then it isn't really an argument (according to the "argument" definition given in page 1). Right? Another example is in the "Alleged Certainty" definition where it says "asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises". Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but If a conclusion doesn't have premises, then it's not really a conclusion, but more of an assertion or claim. Right?

I think it would be a nice addition to the book to include the definitions or the differences between those terms. Also, Bo please tell me if this is the appropriate place to report typos or syntactical errors or make suggestions, similar to the ones I just made about the content of the book.
I think you made a really nice job collecting all those fallacies and I promote the book to my friends or to anyone with whom I have a conversation and I recognize fallacies in their reasoning in every chance I have. So, thank you once again! Your book was really helpful to me!

Your understanding for "Proof by Intimidation" is correct.

As for terms you described, people use them in different ways, even people in academia. I think the importance is mutual understanding (e.g., I am using the term how you think I am). With arguments and conclusions, there are explicit/stated and implicit/implied premises. A conclusion can be synonymous with a claim, understanding that people just don't make random claims; there are some implicit reasons that are just not either known or made clear.

I consider these points in future updates.