H
Half Man Half Wit
Guest
We can (well, most of us, at least), however, we don't think quite the same way you do. The problem is that to you, the words you write are imbued with lots and lots of additional information -- meanings, associations, memories etc. --, while to the rest of us, they're just the bare words. You try to convey the subtext you sense or feel using various means of conveying emphasis, an impact that to you, the words have, but to us, they lack: capitalization, ellipses, unconventional structuring; all those extra-textual elements you apply to try and convey some meaning the bare words themselves don't include. However, it evidently doesn't work too well; but the problem isn't that we do a poor job at decoding your messages, it's that you fail to translate the inner, subjective richness your arguments have to you into an objectively communicable form. It's like with Louis Wain: where the rest of the world just saw a couple of plain old cats, he saw this; where you see a cogent argument, we see this.
The thing is that, objectively, Wain's cats just were plain old ones; and similarly, your argument may not have objectively communicable content -- and in its present form, it is impossible for us to judge whether or not it does.
So, if you want us to discuss your position, you need to make an effort to get across everything you wish to express without feeling the need to tack on extra structure to communicate hidden subtexts, which is impossible for us to accurately decipher; put everything in plain text, and if you are satisfied that it includes everything you wish to communicate, if you don't feel the need to add on any extraneous formatting, capitalization, ellipses and the like, then try submitting it for discussion.