It's so easy to type these things because they're short
Had I had more time and greater skill in writing, my posts would have been much shorter still.
Even if what you're saying is right, it can decrease the tendency of others to think about boards for themselves
Few posters encourage experimentation as much as I do. In fact my style's main purpose is to maximize the probability of people actually going out and experiment, while minimizing the incidence of protracted pedantry.
which is so easily remedied by you just giving reasons for what you're saying!
That's what I thought for a long time but it turns out that handing out the reasoning upfront discourages experimentation. I guess this is either because it provides the illusion of understanding (like having looked up the answer at the back of the book makes you far less likely to work through the exercise) and/or puts people into arguing mode ("Here is reason, must find exception!"). If someone is done experimenting and still has questions I'm always more than happy to elaborate, but very often they've seen and understood by themselves at that point, which is how it should be, as figuring stuff out on your own is so much more rewarding
It can be a bit frustrating to put so much care into what I type, have it be perfectly clear to me, and have people misunderstand me to the point where they think I'm saying something completely different than what I am; all while SCSN can just spout out whatever he wants, saying it so carelessly that it can be inaccurate and even misleading, but people seem to just understand it and praise him for it because he's 14 ranks higher on the leaderboard than I am.
Yah, I'm sure people appreciate my posts just because of my rating, just like people appreciate your videos more than mine because... hmm, now that doesn't make much sense, does it? Maybe... nah, that would be too obvious. Well, hmm... okay, maybe you're just a better video creator and I'm a better writer!
I happen to be very well-versed in classical rhetoric and have spent an inordinate amount of time deliberately honing my writing skills. What you mistake for carelesness on my part is simply the apparent randomness with which a concert pianist smashes his hands on the keys and magically produces widely appreciated tones. It can be a quite frustrating experience indeed if you're up next and don't actually know anything about harmony!
I'd like to know what I said that made this unclear. I can't find anything.
Here you go: A fundamental observation underlying rhetoric is that people respond much stronger to the structure of an argument than to its content. Since my position is crystal-clear and you're rather violently arguing against it, they're going to subconsciously assume that you disagree with it to the core (you wouldn't throw a big fit over, say, the precise frequency of "almost always", after all). The only way to bring across a nuanced point is to tone down the anger and frustration, actually state your general agreement with my position, and then say that you just want to add a basic caveat. When you try to present a nuanced point with a strong stance you're bound to fail, as when tone and content are incongruent, tone takes priority and content will be distorted.
You can argue that it shouldn't be like that, but then you'd be like the captain of the military ship approaching a lighthouse who angrily commands it to move out of the way. Reality is not going anywhere; either master its rules or keep feeling like a victim of forces that only appear to be outside of your control. A wise man once coined an applicable acronym: YMYOSL
