When the push button was new, people were freaked

Woosh? That was a tongue-in-cheek reference back to the original Socrates/Plato quote worrying about thinking skills atrophying due to writing.

For someone so married to the idea of being a deep thinker, who rigorously and patiently reads thick prose, you sure missed an obvious reference.

>At the risk of being an inaccurate arm-chair psychoanalyst I think that your anger and aggression

There's no need to psychoanalyze. Cercatrova took ~400 words, most of which were unnecessary, to bring up an idea, and not even make clear what part of the article it was related too. That's a really wasteful form of communication, and I pointed out why, then later on showed a better way to do it.

Most people would appreciate being told how they could communicate an idea better, and if there's someone here with a toxic personality, I would say it's the one who's trying to medicalize it and act like it's some kind of mental illness, rather than a request for common courtesy.

If you want to ascribe a personality trait to me, how about "distaste at people who waste others' time making their ideas obscure through poor communication", and I have to ask -- why don't you have that personality trait as well? Do you not like when others understand your ideas? Are you worried they'll better see the flaws?

And not that the personal attack was warranted, but: I'm happy to read dense material; I'd just like to know if it is worth my time first. By making me read all of the material first before I know what point it's building to, and not knowing the relevant to the article, you've made me take a lot of time just to learn that you were making a point I already agreed with.

Is wasting others' time a virtue, in your mind?

So I guess I can add you to the list of people missing the irony.

There three "technologies" here: writing, push buttons, and clear writing.

In historical context -- because of cercatrova's oh-so clever, unclear comment -- we can laugh at how foolish it was to dismiss writing or push buttons as "causing atrophy".

Now, I'm advocating the third "technology", clear writing, and you're responding exactly like the very same ridiculed people: "Oh no, if people write clearly, then others won't get necessary practice in tolerating crappy prose! I'm a superior person who can parse crappy prose -- don't take that advantage from me!"

> force myself to read thick prose sometimes, it is a way to practice attention and an ability to understand others. Maybe it was the reason why it was easy to me to guess the point of the comment?

So, what, you're saying you're more deserving of knowing the point of the comment than others? That it's good that they didn't get it?

>You are silently assume that a clarity and the ease of consumption is among of the top priorities. But it may not be so. Didn't you think that a comment about letters can be composed in a thick and hard to comprehend prose on a purpose to make some point about letters (that are supposed to be easy)? And about buttons too (that are supposed to be easy too)? I do not see what this point may be, but it could be because I'm too stupid to see it.

Or because the point could have been made explicit, but wasn't. In any case, with this comment, you've indicated you've drunk the koolaid. You're actually defending people making themselves harder to understand than necessary, rather than maturely accepting feedback on how to make your point clearer.

And you are doing it in a response to the obscure prose of Socrates. It shows one more time that Socrats' obscure prose make people think. Cleverer people than me and you read Socrates in a search of novel ideas. And you succeeded.

> and you're responding exactly like the very same ridiculed people: "Oh no, if people write clearly, then others won't get necessary practice in tolerating crappy prose! I'm a superior person who can parse crappy prose -- don't take that advantage from me!"

Yes. Do you think it makes me a bad person? I believe not: I did my best to explain you benefits of my skills and how to acquire them. I'm not so egoistic, I'm ready to share my wisdom with a random person without charging them money.

> Or because the point could have been made explicit, but wasn't.

Had you experience of deciphering such an obscure point? Did you feel the fun it gives? I cannot agree that everyone on every occasion must seek the maximum clarity, it would take away the fun.

> In any case, with this comment, you've indicated you've drunk the koolaid.

Wow. You've almost won. But no. I checked wikipedia and urbandictionary, and I know what you mean by "you've drunk the koolaid". Urbandictionary explains: "Kool-Aid" is what one drinks metaphorically, in the context of a political campaign, when faced with an eminent loss. The term was popularly referenced in the 1993 film, "The War Room" by George Stephonopolous when he states, "I'm afraid we're all going to have to drink Kool-Aid."

My skills of understanding are stronger than your skills of making yourself obscure by using references to a folklore. Though it was a nice attempt to win argument by using a form as a point. I like it, really. Much better than obscure Socrates' prose arguing that letters are easy. I can say even I'm a little frustrated to decipher it, because it would be a really good point, you deserved to win just for being able to use it.

> You're actually defending people making themselves harder to understand than necessary, rather than maturely accepting feedback on how to make your point clearer.

Why do you think they need your feedback? With all we know about them they can be better than you and me combined at making their point clear, but decided on this specific occasion to speak riddles.