You have interesting things to say, I'd like to hear more about the Google+ story for example, but your delivery (because you're so angry) makes it nigh unreadable.
It seems like a common handicap amongst otherwise smart and capable people, to possess the inability to ignore tone, style grammar etc, and just judge the message on the strength of it's argument alone.
I consider it a strength to notice both and critique each accordingly. Otherwise you guarantee that you will inadvertently irritate either the big-picture people or the detail lovers (as you have just, ironically, seen demonstrated).
Err No, it is in fact rather apt. As of now, there are two replies to my comment, both nitpicking on the grammar, instead of DH6.
And yes you can have both, but that is not relevant to the argument. The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument), yet many behave as if that is the case.
Suit yourself. But time is well-spent learning to craft readable sentences.
> The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument)
It's necessary but not sufficient. Having literary skill won't save a bad argument, but lacking literary skill will surely undermine a good one.
Grammatical ability is a sign of respect for the reader/listener. Without that sign of respect, one is placed at a crippling disadvantage in advance of presenting the argument.
Eg. Claim1: The motherfucking sun is deff larger than da moonz!
Without getting into petty semantic deconstruction, the essence of the statement is true, regardless of the respect (or lack thereof) for the listener. You seem to be confusing logic, with persuasion and communication.
No, only the outcome -- effective communication.
> You seem to be confusing logic, with persuasion and communication.
You seem to be confused about the purpose of writing -- which is effective communication. Without an awareness of the recipient, writing becomes onanism.
BTW apropos the topic, both your sentences above contain an unnecessary comma.
I tend to feel that when someone gets angry and start calling names, it signals that either the person hasn't really thought things out or the person has difficulty seeing other points of view. There are multiple perspectives on many engineering topics.