It's largely anecdotal, personal writing. So your description of my style may be technically accurate, but I feel your point suffers as a Mary-the-Color-Scientist observation.
Take Paul Grice's Maxims for conversational exchange: Many maxims are at play, and we shouldn't expect for anyone to be "in control" of their execution of a maxim (maxim of relevance, truth, etc.). And an important point is that Grice notes a maxim of relevance: relevant _information_.
Do I aim to supply anyone with _information_ with my post? Am I giving you information? From my post, does it seem like I, the author, would see _information_ as imperative to my point? Yes, naturally programmers expect an optimally informative state such that transaction might occur, but...
Please, just read the sentences. I'm not a politician trying to convince you. I am a human being with an approximate grasp of Academic English. I mean, you're re-labeling my style with "UNINFORMATIVE."
How do you expect me to take that?
And "as bad as you seem to believe." Please point to anywhere in what I have written that suggests I have described an overarching state of affairs to which we should all direct our attention.
My point is nothing more than "it is a lifestyle choice amongst many". Of course as someone who works out daily, as my anecdotal bits clear emphasize, I am at once suggesting my own bias. But "things"... I'm nowhere in that post talking about _things as they are_ or "the grand scheme."
You've applied that concept, not me. I'm mainly interested in this idea that _Everything before the Internet is boring_. I am thinking in terms that we have all well acknowledged: hours spent in front of a screen. The 5:01 developer intuits this. When I consider my hours not spent in front of a screen, I have sport, books, travel, etc. Others have this as well. Sometimes family or quite simply that too-sunny-fucking-idyllic-sunday feeling that tells you: What I am discussing here, with this poet, must be more interesting than work. So my point is actually a request for us to halt the discussion. Before we talk about values (good, bad, etc.), let's first acknowledge that it is a lifestyle. We should understand the values of the lifestyle (notably the one the original author seems to reject).
And as a follow-up: What motivates this linguistic policing?
Take Paul Grice's Maxims for conversational exchange: Many maxims are at play, and we shouldn't expect for anyone to be "in control" of their execution of a maxim (maxim of relevance, truth, etc.). And an important point is that Grice notes a maxim of relevance: relevant _information_.
Do I aim to supply anyone with _information_ with my post? Am I giving you information? From my post, does it seem like I, the author, would see _information_ as imperative to my point? Yes, naturally programmers expect an optimally informative state such that transaction might occur, but...
Please, just read the sentences. I'm not a politician trying to convince you. I am a human being with an approximate grasp of Academic English. I mean, you're re-labeling my style with "UNINFORMATIVE."
How do you expect me to take that?
And "as bad as you seem to believe." Please point to anywhere in what I have written that suggests I have described an overarching state of affairs to which we should all direct our attention.
My point is nothing more than "it is a lifestyle choice amongst many". Of course as someone who works out daily, as my anecdotal bits clear emphasize, I am at once suggesting my own bias. But "things"... I'm nowhere in that post talking about _things as they are_ or "the grand scheme."
You've applied that concept, not me. I'm mainly interested in this idea that _Everything before the Internet is boring_. I am thinking in terms that we have all well acknowledged: hours spent in front of a screen. The 5:01 developer intuits this. When I consider my hours not spent in front of a screen, I have sport, books, travel, etc. Others have this as well. Sometimes family or quite simply that too-sunny-fucking-idyllic-sunday feeling that tells you: What I am discussing here, with this poet, must be more interesting than work. So my point is actually a request for us to halt the discussion. Before we talk about values (good, bad, etc.), let's first acknowledge that it is a lifestyle. We should understand the values of the lifestyle (notably the one the original author seems to reject).
And as a follow-up: What motivates this linguistic policing?