sequential prose - WTF would you have to bitch about, then?
You'd lose a valuable source of meat protein in your prissy |Organized| jelloware.
(BTW - 'swallow whole' is an apt description of ad-speak; thanks for the compliment.)
[Short-form: bottom]

So it's homogenized One-Style-fits-All-Here / max%compress that youse Boolean-heads crave, eh? Why not then import some more .tar.gz.zip.cab -heads, and get on with this important work?

Who needs perspicuity or nuance when ya gots good and then, Double-Plus-Good?
(except.. I don't see any young Orwells bein whelped in these parts, either.)

Ah, maybe it's about my failure to employ those everyday software tools as have formed your ideas about 'proper speech', since digital teenhood -

\ufffd I can tell that my posts are incomprehensible.
\ufffd No one ever replies.
\ufffd Except to argue the points raised,
\ufffd After bitching about how they were raised.
\ufffd That should be a clue to anyone,
\ufffd Except me. .^..
\ufffd I must be dense.
\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd QED

ie [short form]
None compels.


Next though - maybe I'll go for Petulance; that seems a pretty popular diversion, when things are slow. (But I'd really have to draw the line at getting an X-Box; running Vi (if Vi had enough factory-installed \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd))


Carrion - but maybe a bit more imaginatively than this batch, huh?

We come from different backgrounds and assumptions (maybe even about the Why's of adjectives and adverbs - and the need to have an attention span which can bear them all in mind?) I also predate the boomers and their 'entrepreneurial' nonethic: Rape of lesser-brained ones is OK, in My pursuit of Mine. Politics/language - inextricable, often.

My path crosses (most here) in that I have as much experience with complex techno as anyone else here; it's not the same sort exactly - but then physics Rulez everything you do that needs a machine, as much as it does an accelerator complex or a hydraulic pump.

Yes, I'd thought ~something like that about your talents. And about the programming model. Few are as self-aware of their own methodology as you; I'd deem that more of a blessing than a curse - but you'd have to look at the word, 'efficiency', I wot: if that figures large in "why I choose this?", well - if IWE were a Wikipedia and that's All it were: (___)

That facility + the fact of your actually Knowing IT-stuff down to most Gotcha-levels (not shitting self and bystanders, like say, some grads of one of those MCSx diploma mills?)
is why your hilarious, simultaneously stark
"Instructions to the PFY"
scans, at least to me: As Technical Art.

You didn't waste a syllable, but then the material did not need many adjectives, adverbs -- the usual stuff of speech, when it's about homo-saps and our crazy mixed-up sets of brains (intellect, emotion, instinct etc.)
No extra modifiers would have added anything (though perhaps just One.. subtly humorous in-quip? might have raised it to Masterpiece level.)

But a fair self-assessment deserves a response in kind.
I'll even format for your short-line preference
(an idea I don't find 'silly' BTW - merely,
like my 'style': unconventional.)

I am not you, to coin a phrase. ;-)
At some nebulous point I had to ~choose: 'Art'? (ie music) or 'Science'?
(ie go with a facility for right answers to simple techno stuff,
as methodical people so Love to test for).

I knew I couldn't hack it as a prof. musician
(details, reasons wouldn't be a very good story).

Thus I took the easy-way, until it finally dawned on me what daily-doing 'Science' is like.
I was fortunate to find the exact-Right niche for one such as I;
that was not on the frontiers of Theoretical- anything,
(except for a few forays -- everyone gets to be a Hero for 15 min.)

Of course, most here are not 'doing science' either -
are applying tools and lore to problem-solving, not invention or conceptualization.
No theoreticians here now ; no Ross.
(No idea what Ben does after 'work' - I hasten to add.)

Vocabulary
First, I think many science students today would be surprised
(and need that dictionary) to read the Giants.
Most of those were educated == wealthy, and that meant Actually Educated,
as in Rigorously.
as in 'liberal arts' not just F=MA.
Who else could afford the time, \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd for experiments?

I graduated HS early.
To read the stuff I wanted to read I had to understand words:
their words, not my kid-speak or market-speak.
And especially-Not the then primitive marketing-speak
(And you Can start a sentence with 'And').
Needed words.. even to read a book on Alchemy,
when written by someone who knew Cato from catatonic.

However one does form speech habits, I have had to no-less simplify from what I knew to be the nuance I intended, just as you - though rarely in academe.
I also realized early-on the Fact of Murican society being notoriously anti-'intellectual'
(by which most people really mean: all that trouble! to really Think, explore!
about the difference between simple and a nice glib simplistic 'answer'.)

Picking a $64 word when a simpler one is very-close - we know what that's called. But surrendering a $64 word for 20 others, that don't quite capture it -
that's another.
(Pecksniff! beats Asshole! in a walk, for bearing down on the underlying source of one's discontent with an er, Asshole - no?)

{All the more fun - if the pecksniff has to Look It Up, I say.}

Finally, I 'joined' this motley group as did most - via creeping gradualism.
And if all that finally proved topical [in the various 'here's] had come to
~~ pip B:=A:*.*/V ? we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I had to 'defend' my 'style', I might observe that,
my experience teaches that - all original mental activity is Associative,
in any mode that is seeking "the New" == because that IS the only "way we Tell".
(And yes, in full snake-concentration mode re a particular problem unravelling -- one is Not seeking The New, but merely a solution to That Puzzle.)

Digression -
Besides, these categories suck, anyway: there's Science in Music & vice versa.
(Ever read any of Hofstadter's epistles?
See the Sci. Am. article re a Chopin etude score: as visual art?)

A Bach fugue.. there's at least one which keeps ascending into new keys.
It never Resolves! [OK - trans into Barry-speak:]

Stoned on some Sinsemilla of a grade most only ever hear about
+ some Bushmills, other powdery aids
-- two of us were listening to That fugue.

Slurred a bit, Martin said..
y'know, I think we're.. hearing.. Bach's comprehension of ... ... infinity...
(Can add nothing to that.)


(I can talk techno-shop too, re 'accelerators', bizarre involute Gotchas in lectronic circuits - with as much economy of the superfluous as you're describing. But I don't call that 'speech' or human communication - it's really just filling-in a logic table for someone else to see: an ELSE or an IF THEN which one has too glibly passed over..)

Hope this adds something to the mix;
it would be Dull City if everyone talked like Accountants.
If something is actually There, and it takes some mental 'associations?'
to put it out / to get to it..
some will try sometimes; others, never. Most wrote to find out what they Knew, not 'knew'.
(We live in an in-between world there, too ;-)

*Experimentation* is a concept that appiles to all forms of 'communication' TOO;
not just to making better Tazers or SAM missiles. Or fixing fucking IE.
(We've already had Studs T's clarification of how that meaning
differs from 'communications' - No?)

Lastly: whenever anyone means to publish anything for Real -
doing so without a good editor [person! !-Vi] is really Dumb.


Cheers,
I