If I already knew and understood precisely whatever might remain unclear, how so and why, then believe you me that I would already have revised accordingly.

Command of the English language in our times
Literacy and Dialectical exploration of motive and subversion unfolding in real world drama

As so famously Marshall McLuhan would have it: “The medium is the message.” Indeed, the massage in the mass age! For pervading characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge. Indeed such as asynchronous text communication. What then reveals itself as the inherent message at the very essence of asynchronous text communication? And likewise hypertext? Not to digress. And all to what impact upon Dialectical collaboration, so fundamental to Eudemonia?



For characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge.

Fully leveraging the power of the written word, asynchronous text communication is communication by text, typed language, with any delay between response, which is to say: not in immediate real time. Messages are first composed, and only then made available to be read at any later time even soon afterwards, for response in kind likewise. Asynchronous text communication such as in email and electronic message posting forums and groups, with such quick turnaround, has brought the unprecedented advent of correspondence as a continual and convenient vehicle of actual dialogue, remotely, even internationally. Correspondence via asynchronous text communication affords timely and substantive conversation, but with the intervening leisure to best compose ones thoughts. Thus congenial and productive alternation between the outreach and extroversion of Dialectical collaboration and the introversion and retreat of solitary reflection. Hitherto, before the advent of the computer revolution, with traditional postal delivery, or: “snail mail,” correspondence as a vehicle of actual dialogue back and forth, was impractical and counterintuitive because of the far longer turn around. At the same time, asynchronous text communication maintains a record and generates work product.

Of course, even given nigh instant turn around of electronic communication such as via the Internet, asynchronous text communication remains notoriously lacking in all manner of subtle cues so characteristic of real time voice communications, let alone live onsite encounters. Moreover, ordinary conversation unselfconsciously features a certain self correction process back and forth, only natural and so well accustomed to dialogue. Whereas culturally, capable asynchronous text communication often requires a deliberate and even meticulously attentive interjection of response, point by point, line by line. Moreover, no matter how frequently replies in turn are posted, asynchronous text communication cannot rely upon short term memory for context. And that is another reason why conversational adequacy in asynchronous text communication makes demands that might not arise in real time communication. Every reply must address not only others in the short term, but ones own forgetful future self, consulting the conversational history wherein all previous messages in the thread are preserved and presented in sequence underneath the current message text.



For all such remain among the characteristics of the distinctive and unprecedented medium of asynchronous text communication, especially at the highest levels of intelligent exchange. Without such specialized literacy, conversation via asynchronous text communication, may become significantly impaired and dumbed down. Indeed precisely such impairment has been most notoriously normalized within online communities reliant upon certain very limited and limiting technologies and formats of asynchronous text communication. After all, one of the standing issues in asynchronous text communication such as in email, remains the necessity of communication not only in the short term with anyone else, but in the longer term, of leaving what amount to effective memos for one’s own future self. Different cultures foster greater or lesser aptitude and literacy in this very regard. Indeed likewise different technologies, more robust or deliberately less so, also encourage or discourage any and all such greater depth of communication. Indeed, the medium quickly becomes a message and expectation regarding culture of communication.

And specifically here on FoolQuest.com, for asynchronous text communication online at its most sublime, there remain two particular creative endeavors most strikingly amenable to Dialectic analytic yet strategic and to brainstorming towards creative solution finding in collaboration among equals. And these remain Entrepreneurship and creative writing: new venture creation (various business startup) undertaken concurrently with serious collaborative fiction writing. If only because both business or project planning and story telling are each deliberative and verbal. It should be easy to imagine even worthy alternatives to Entrepreneurship and creative writing, nevertheless that are neither verbal nor exactly deliberative. Music, for example, affords an avenue for creative collaboration and improvisation, ever growing online, requiring however, a different literacy and a different keyboard. Few options however, will ever be so spontaneous or routine as never to require both initiative and prior deliberation both practical and imaginative. Only the entire gamut of mind numbing failed conventionality in such dire need of subversion! And hence the probortunity at hand. And more anon.

The Complete Guide to Asynchronous Communication

The true essence of Language: For Eudemonia remains ever a function of human interaction, in a word: communication. And the level of communication often accrues, in any measure, from the degree of attention invested. Because language is more than cipher. Language via whatever vehicle, remains the medium of thought and expression. Indeed, as Martin Heidegger propounds, language speaks the man: Because even human character, personality, is constructed from language. And moreover to reiterate, as Marshall McLuhan would have it: “The medium is the message” For characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. What then reveals itself as the inherent message at the very essence of language, indeed even of the English language in particular? And of what Relevance upon Dialectical collaboration, so fundamental to Eudemonia?

To wit: Hypertext resists the single linear narrative. All traditional text, whether in printed form or in computer files, is sequential, meaning that there is a single linear sequence defining the order in which the text is to be read. (...) Hypertext is nonsequential; there is no single order that determines the sequence in which the text is to be read.³⁶ — 'Hypertext Theory' by Thorsten Schreiber Why use hypertext? "Because in general, humans learn better associatively [...] hypertext operates very similar to the way our brains do--in a series of networks, or associations--as opposed to a linear path.” — Hypertext and writing: An overview of the hypertext medium by Kimberly Amaral
All traditional text, whether in printed form or in computer files, is sequential, meaning that there is a single linear sequence defining the order in which the text is to be read. (...) Hypertext is nonsequential; there is no single order that determines the sequence in which the text is to be read.³⁶

— 'Hypertext Theory' by Thorsten Schreiber

Why use hypertext? "Because in general, humans learn better associatively [...] hypertext operates very similar to the way our brains do--in a series of networks, or associations--as opposed to a linear path.”

— Hypertext and writing: An overview of the hypertext medium by Kimberly Amaral

Site visitors to FoolQuest.com may tend to follow not authorial intent, but whatever ones own individual characteristic motivation. FoolQuest.com pursues matters of greatest importance to the author. But the reader follows their own priorities of information resource, relatable concerns and consensual Existential Validation. And all of that inevitably entails making decisions. And making decisions and setting priorities, often arouses ambivalence, even crimestop and irritation.

Hyperlinkage often serves in similar function to footnoting and attribution. But there can also be much more to it: Unidirectional linear text may be likened unto any plodding lecture, whereas by contrast, sophisticated hypertext prompts and anticipates different possible avenues of question and exploration in virtual conversations, interaction with the reader, to ignite and to supplement human discussion and interaction in turn. Linear connection then gives way instead to variable configuration, shedding new light. Generally friendly Netizens researching whatever their own concerns, entertainment, edification and even howsoever pandering propaganda validation, diligently follow the proverbial bread crumbs accordingly. Alas likewise also the most weirdly fanatical hostile reactionary internet trolls and flamers, unerringly tracking down whatever taboo content, opinion or expression howsoever deemed indeed most objectionable in their excruciating fragile sensibilities. By contrast, the desperately sought for star first follower, blazing the trail, shall herald the true meeting of minds and collaboration among equals in creative solution finding and Eudemonia here on FoolQuest.com For the star first follower shall be the true leader, showing others how to relate. Know thyself! It's all a matter of individual cost-benefit evaluation and expected effort. Gentle reader, if there is a better option, then take it. And if you have a better idea, then kindly do come forth and share. But come what may, one way or another, expect hard work, futility, or both.

Linearity of text constrains human intellect, but far less so than Totalitarian Interactivity forever leading the complacent safely about by the nose. By contrast, in their true capacity, Word Processing and hypertext have expanded human consciousness. In content and design, hypertext is a uniquely powerful and even democratizing information management technology of effective group support, collaboration and endeavor. A hypertext becomes similar to a dynamic linked list in coding for computer programming. Because, likewise, and in different ways, hypertext may group and connect myriad elements along myriad vectors of Gestalt reality through clustered mind mapping constellations, indeed even to be likened unto any central train depot or rail yard, diverging to points close by or far and wide with "t he devil is in the details." Indeed, as only befitting to the complicated real world as it truly is, and research to reflect reality, a detailed hypertext is both map and territory, recursively. But a detailed hypertext can not be likened unto a tour, because a tour must remain linear with all stops scheduled in sequence. Dramatic plot ever remains linear, but reality unfolds in dharma, in the confluence of situation and circumstance, favorable or unfavorable. Indeed the mythic Hero's Journey of discovery, even in real life, doing anything really cool together, no less than in compelling drama, may begin with some sort of a map. But a map will be of little use sans wherewithal for deciding where to go next. Whereas, in any linear text, content is set in sequence, in browsing hypertext, the site visitor, Effective Active Reading strategies according to individual focus, follows variable sequence to suit their own sensemaking on the fly. Therefore, gentle reader, navigate this very hypertext for yourself, find your own way, and chart your own path to intellectual adventure! Just try not to chip a nail clicking the links!

Amazing how those most virulently complaining of disorientation in navigation of FoolQuest.com, and for all evident and derisive short attention span, nevertheless unerringly home right in on whatever very specific content and minutiae so evocative to whatever their excruciatingly delicate sensibilities of picayune and scandalized prudery! Not to digress.

The importance of salient literate critique, and the frustration of stubborn dogmatic blithe cross-purpose thereto...

In the words of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: “Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least." Indeed, prioritization becomes more important than ever, as we each and all find ourselves ensnared in an overstressed attention economy, attention ever spread so very thin. Because to quote Herbert Simon: “What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” And yet, seriously, does anyone actually never read any difficult or challenging material whatsoever, even when howsoever ever even possibly at all deemed warranted or salutary? Quite to the contrary, so many people online become absorbed and devote themselves in the most esoteric and obscure deep dives, just for the engrossing challenge. Hence an attack upon effort and difficulty whatsoever, and in its own right, no matter what, just perhaps somewhat misses the point. Historically, confusing new ideas take time to digest into concise and familiar elegance. All quite regardless of such incessant and unserious objections to difficulty and effort at all, even often seemingly from all quarters nowadays. Indeed tar baby finally put to rest, being subject herein to long overdue most scathing and devastating rebuttal, in order then at long last ever to continue on topic. Fat chance! A tar baby after all, is an issue only ensnaring the unwary in struggle all the more, drawn in to contend against it.

Indeed, such misguided and simpleminded concerns may often be regarded by many as self-evident fundamentals of the writing craft necessarily coming prior to, and even in obviation alas, of all other more intelligent discourse. But to quote Mark Twain: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” Indeed, most charitably and at very best, actually such miserable maxims remain applicable for hack writing in every pejorative of that term. Indeed, perhaps however surprisingly to many so dogmatic, half-assed dilettantes cocksure and blithely unaware of controversy long raging across the Net, herein shall be laid bare the poverty of precisely that prevalent rigid view. For precisely those simplistic short attention maxims of simple writing style, remain flawed precept as indeed to be found featuring most prominently on cautionary lists in explicit criticism of stock bad writing advice. And make no mistake, these list are compiled by capable writers who know their craft and care.

Alas then the ubiquity of such all consuming preoccupation with imperatives of correct webdesign and/or simple writing style. And all quite without regard even to dangers of distortion from oversimplification. And all so as to preclude or obviate even salient and literate critique or editing remarks, much less actually engagement on topic. What disengaged proselytizing smug self-righteous invalidation, even however naively well intended. Even let alone actually antagonistic irrelevant cross-purposed soft-flame! In case actually of reading difficulty ever as inevitably arising, for serious readers and writers there remains better and more pertinent and intelligent remedy than in any such blithe anti-intellectualism.

Therefore, thank you gentle reader. Because not withstanding whatever antics of inveterate complexity junkies, nevertheless and undeniably, we all live in such a tightly strained attention economy. And therefore all the more, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” And moreover to quote Karan Gaur: “Effort is the best indicator of interest.” But perhaps most saliently to Eudemonia, optimal reciprocal engagement accrues the highest return in like kind, for truly generous investment of precious attention so precious to and craved by all. Hence there can be no short attention propagandistic and stingy robotic formula or spouting of misguided rules, in order to replace the hard work and Active Reading of simply taking any interest, even given disagreement. Your Impossible Mission, gentle reader, should you choose to accept it!



How best then persistently to assist one another continually to bring across and improve clarity of initially or hitherto howsoever unclear messages?
Barring then Zen abject surrender to Wittgensteinean paralysis, there remain at least three competing general approaches in order to surmount communications difficulties:


1) To prevail upon the message sender, one way or another, to communicate more clearly and effectively.

Indeed, all too common and alas often unhelpful strategy in what passes for assistance to improve another's prose, may be to fob off the most general, repeated and standard writing advice, so often misguided, and so dismissively without engaging whatever message in question, and content thereof, at all. Or to point out formal errors and to cite often silly rules. And all in such uncritical imitation of all such pedantry as whereof we have all been exposed as dutiful pupils figuratively set, metaphorically to jump through proverbial hoops, until robotic proficiency is attained. Alas, all of that only goes so far.

Worse, a particularly manipulative and unscrupulous message recipient in monumental bad faith, may seek power over the struggling message sender, by blithely refusing to listen. This toxic headgame is named: The stone-deaf powerplay. Or they can tune out from all thought. And this may be dubbed: The stone stupid power play.

2) To prevail upon the message recipient, one way or another, to decode the message more skillfully and effectively.

As for example, when a math teacher asserting power and authority, pressures the dutifully submissive student, first to learn more math, in order thus better to understand an equation or math problem, solve whatever puzzle, and at last fully and correctly comprehend. It remains however, that any better pedagogue might be more helpful, rather than simply abandoning any helpless pupil to their own devices. For such remain the evils of Inductivism. Not to digress. The point remaining as to how power relations frequently remain frustrating, unilluminating, oppressive and counterproductive.

3) Or, evidently, least commonly routine among alternatives, for sender and recipient, without subtext or implication of ill intent and willful obscurantism, to share responsibility and strive together for clear explanation and successful communication. For well beyond all stubborn and clueless pedantry, such remains, The Way of the Sympathetic Copy/Language Editor or beta reader.

As indeed (wait for it!) perhaps as allegorically glorified in the Science Fiction motion picture blockbuster: ‘Arrival,’ wherein as rational actors in all good faith, by their shining example demonstrating for us all how to participate. As cinematic rôle models by their example teaching us all how best to relate, human scientists and outer space aliens as portrayed on screen, are seen to engage tirelessly together, for as long as it takes, in unflagging and nigh heroic communications struggle, until at last reaching Intersubjectivity as achieved when the comprehension of a message by the recipient, is at last brought into closer correspondence with the intended message content of the sender. Indeed, in Socratic Dialectical collaboration among equals. Because, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time.

In response, post to the for others to weigh in, orif it's private.

To quote Stephen Hawking: “The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance, It is the Illusion of Knowledge.” Attention yea misguided staunch advocates of simplistic writing style to the stubborn and obdurate exclusion of anything else: As to the intellectual poverty of smug short attention and much vaunted simple writing: New ideas are often confusing. Only shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly. The mainstay of science and philosophy was once the cutting edge. The well familiar great concise ideas upon which we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line, word by word. Because writing is rewriting, and never a waste of time. But to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new. And such remains real world drama, wherein interesting complexity draws us in, no less than in any compelling work of fiction. Further more, no one will be put off by writing style, even however rich and complex, that resonates personally. Such writing garners praise.
Tweeting (or X-ing?) truthfully can be challenging, because of that notorious word count limitation. Truth will not endure oversimplification. Truth can be simplified only to whatever degree, before becoming distorted into nonsense or falsehood. But comforting falsehood that need not correspond to objective reality, faces no such limitation. Liars always have the simplest argument, for those lazy thinkers so easily won over thereby. But such impoverished rhetoric raises suspicion among more honest and intelligent folks. Nevertheless, resorting to all manner of the most blatant and complicated nonsense and falsehood, reactionary ideologues tend to dismiss accurate detail and complexity as needless convolution and even resort to conspiracy theories. Then they wax nostalgic: One day when the battle is won, the world will return to blissful simplicity!

• The Alt-Right Playbook: You Can't Get Snakes from Chicken Eggs

Do unfashionably heightened language and dense writing style, let alone voluminously comprehensive hypertext, ever actually increase substance and depth of content? In a word: Yes. Unapologetically: They can and do. And there is no heavier burden in richer content, only greater range of choice and interest. All as befitting due respect for the reader's time, attention and intellect.

And yet, no writer or speaker must ever transfer responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, to whatever audience so put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate writer, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation for any such future readers. It's never easy. Because there can be no shortcuts among serious responsible adults. And all of that is precisely why every writer both maintains every right and bears full responsibility of specifying the nature and kind of feedback deemed most helpful in advancing authorial intent. And such present terms of use should be well obvious agenda of philosophy and habits of clear thinking together, so fundamental and prerequisite to all else, freely and tenaciously questioning whatever is not understood. Because the Socratic Wisdom of questioning whatever is not understood is not any anomaly or bothersome inconvenience, but actually inherent to the human condition, intellect and consciousness, let alone communication and Active Reading at the level of FoolQuest.com And again, hence the present digression.


The tar baby: Well may one ask: What can possibly be so wrong merely with anything seemingly so innocuous as advocating simple writing style? Plenty, and there's the rub! To begin with, it remains deplorably bad writing advice to exclude all else save for simple writing style, indeed actually semiliterate! But worse, the blithe expectation becomes omni purpose lazy dismissal of any conceivable effort at questioning and working out whatever is not understood, even in order to help revise more clearly. But perhaps most importantly, somehow the misguided maxim has become an ideology. A blithely dogmatic ideology among such Orwellian obstructive and silly demands incessantly pressed as though greatest purls of wisdom and commandments from On High. Alas that such proverbial tar babies remain in need of figurative decent burial in order to liberate exchange of more serious thinking and expression in order to begin debating such important disagreements openly and seriously. A tar baby is an issue only ensnaring the unwary in struggle all the more, drawn in to contend against it. And one such ubiquitous tar baby remains the wide spread and angry perception of entitlement for dumbing everything down and pandering to short attention dullardly people pleasing willful positivity and ineffectual pipedream. And all hence the oppressive and ill considered imperative of simple writing.

Indeed, perhaps however surprisingly to many so dogmatic, cocksure and blithely unaware of controversy long raging across the Net, here shall be argued the poverty of precisely that prevalent rigid view. For precisely those simplistic maxims of simple writing style, remain flawed precept as indeed to be found featuring most prominently across the Net on cautionary lists in explicit criticism of stock bad writing advice. And yet those blockheads all still find themselves so consumed in preoccupation with imperatives of correct webdesign and/or simple writing style, and quite without regard to dangers of distortion from oversimplification, and all so as to preclude or obviate even salient and literate critique or editing remarks, much less actually engagement on topic? What disengaged proselytizing smug self-righteous invalidation, even when naively well intended. In case actually of reading difficulty, indeed as so often reported, there remains a body of less convenient and dismissive better and more pertinent options at remedy in the true discipline of the writing craft for any serious writer. And the key remains not in rejecting effort in very principle, but to the contrary, in full engagement.

Indeed, a specific taxonomy of tar baby awaits lurking in a particularly toxic invalidating mixed message, to ensnare the unwary in dishonest ambiguity of purportedly helping and benevolently correcting while at the same time, simply refusing to engage in authorial purpose, whereof after all, one so stridently disagrees and even actually disapproves. -A deviously invalidating and manipulative emotional bait-and-switch! Rather than such devious conditionality in assistance, as to press the author entirely at cross-purpose to authorial intent, far better instead openly to initiate creation of an entirely new and different project of ones own, and then to politely enlist the other's assistance! Because subversion of initial purpose, is no longer any offer of cooperation with and to another, but actually a solicitation thereof from another, and all towards whatever ones own distinctly different ends. And as ever, honesty remains best policy, to openly debate best alternatives of purpose and strategy.

To wit: Alas that to begin with, even complaining of incomprehension, even quite without derision, and let alone demanding simple writing in pandering accommodation to fashionably unserious and anti-intellectual short attention and oversimplification, is not even remotely the same agenda as actually requesting clarification let alone proffering assistance therein. The latter after all, remaining the entire legitimate and valuable agenda of actual critique, even however candid and brutally honest. By contrast, all such exasperating "help" only steamrolling forth in whatever its own blockheaded ideology such as above, quite without even polite curiosity as to whatever the author struggles to express or achieve, only manipulatively feigns such Existential Validation of helpful well intention. Meanwhile in subtext of toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of Anti-Socratic knee-jerk invalidation, only exerting compulsion somehow to comply with whatever inane expectations of sophomoric peer pressure, indeed embraced as divine commandment and purls of wisdom. Indeed, the most slippery and irritating cross-purpose of ulterior agenda, actually bordering upon trolling replete with typically pointless and irrelevant soft-flame. And such remains no legitimate mode of discourse, no semblance either of salient writing critique or of Socratic controversy, of free, open and appreciated exchange of criticism, so crucial to all collaboration among equals in creative solution finding, bold ambition, fearless endeavor and Eudemonia all therein.

The entire blithely dogmatic ideology of Anti-Critical braindead short attention and therefore simple writing style, only reflects a certain sense of inadequacy and disappointment that life is neither simple nor easy, but fraught with difficulty and error. No less insidious than outright defeatism, Pollyanna willfully optimistic expectation of everything desirable to become simple and easy or else just a matter of unflagging determination and persistence, just isn't realistic. Nor is just giving up in surprise, discouraged at every hurdle arising. The entire responsible agenda of realistic feasibility study, remains foreseeable estimation of difficulty and complexity, not to mention eustress vs. dystress among myriad other priorities, of whatever proposed undertakings and objectives. Indeed, the most important function of business or project planning remains the Socratic practice of controversy, the free, open and appreciated exchange of criticism, ongoing error detection in order to discover foreseeable obstacles, exposing and even, if need be, actually and actively discouraging flawed ideas, in ongoing process of elimination. But only among those willingly amenable to any such fault finding process together, quintessentially entrepreneurial and artistic serial failures, resolved ever to return to that proverbial drawing board, as many times as it takes, until at last meeting with success. And the clustered mind map drawing board of FoolQuest.com charting the real world Hero's Journey, remains the venerable and sage modern medium known as hypertext:

No one seems even capable to conceive, much less willing duly to consider, that indeed as herein, that there remains need to write more simply, but rather best to organize and refine content: Most elegantly and coherently to express and then optimally to configure complex interrelationship of associated information and ideas. And yes, this pertains not only to writing style, but to webdesign and hypertext. And it's a matter of Socratic Wisdom. Because, no, I don't make things more complicated. They truly are more complicated, more complicated and daunting than we dare imagine. And all too often very much subject to distortion by cavalier and reckless oversimplification from all manner of grifters, knaves and fools falsely promising that everything can be simple and easy. No shortcuts: Believe me, if I already knew and understood precisely whatever might be unclear, how so and why, I would already have revised accordingly. And that will be a matter of specifics in detail orientation, and not those braindead generalities so harped upon. Pedants make pupils jump through hoops, but helpful feedback fully engages, no matter how candid, brutally honest, harsh and critical, even line by line. Easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time.

Therefore, in entirely straight forward purport to all previous exasperated hyperbole, the following analogy of robotic nonresponse is proffered: Solving algebraic equations, by way of illustrative example, indeed entails simplification achieved by reducing the number of nested parentheses, a confusing and daunting process for the uninitiated. By way of analogy for purpose of illustration, let it be supposed that there might remain, indeed, I'm sure, some especially annoyingly obtuse Inductivist who will only demand, incessantly and repeatedly, the simplification of algebra, determinedly unhelpful and refusing to correct mistakes or offer any helpful suggestions or cogent explanation. One might even come to suspect that such a hypothetical mathematician might finally be unmasked as a fraud, yet another academic charlatan, with no germ of an idea what they are talking about at all: Just one more intellectually lazy know-nothing know-it-all, so readily confounded by any earnest seeker of truth. Because, like Richard P. Feynman, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Indeed, as the saying goes, no question is too stupid to ask, and no answer too wise to be given. However, the vexation at hand is no such hypothetical dubious math help, but actual and celebrated routine writing maxim, dogmatism exactly and as determinedly obtuse and unhelpful. That is your way, it is not mine! Thus spake Zarathustra.
For beware: The thrust of Robert Frost's famous poem 'The Road not Taken,' is not rugged individualism at all: “It is a poem about the necessity of choosing that somehow, like its author, never makes a choice itself. ”

As suggested in the above parable, actually even somewhat self-righteously invalidating dismissive short attention exhortation to simple writing style, simply comes not to any point! It's an easy out. Because such short attention generality and invalidatingly dismissive platitude as such adamant exhortations to simple writing style, utterly fail to engage the text, indeed even simply to point out precisely whatever linguistic ambiguities or difficulties in syntax or composition howsoever in need of whatever improvement or clarification, let alone actually addressing indeed perhaps even somewhat complicated content. So, if any of this actually applies to you, Sir or Madame, please: Stop talking at me, and start talking to me! Should the point at hand by now at all seem even somewhat belabored, then hopefully the matter must be clear and lucid, even somewhat obvious.