BC. I wasn’t going to bother replying but, on second thoughts, I’ve decided to try clear up a few points:
As far as meeting with the requirements of this site regarding how to write a post, I'd say your advice is practical (I deliberately avoided saying ‘pragmatic’!). However that's why I'm packing in PF – Such advice as this, even when as in your case it's well intended, is a recipe inevitably for a type of English which is both soporifically bland and, as a vehicle for communicating nuances in philosophical debate, hopelessly imprecise. – Like for ex you actually told me that for fear of arousing offence at its’ alien nature I should have avoided using a word as routine as ‘conducive’ - and instead should have substituted something less precise like, ‘leads to’. Oh come on now – We’d have to declare half the words in the dictionary unacceptable at that rate!
The only point you make that I do concede is that I am a bit undisciplined regarding the length of my sentences (owing maybe to my habit of typing posts on a phone during work commutes, which makes editing a little difficult). Anyway, it would certainly be a bit more considerate of me to shorten them – though in practice I still think the difficulty this kind of thing purportedly presents to people is more to do with fashionable preconceptions in favour of a simplistic type of expression together with a cultural resistance towards making a slight effort at interpretation, rather than that a sentence containing a couple of extra clauses genuinely creates some insuperable barrier to understanding. (-Oops! Sorry!)
Personally, I find the funniest aspect of the numerous attempts made to date at ridiculing my posts by the likes of Hannover, etc - in that ironically I'm of course streets ahead of these critics in the articulacy department - to be ultimately their innocence. There's genuine comedy in seeing, as in the example of Hanover's remarks by which presumably he expected to publicly ridicule me, derision being confidently dispensed by an individual in the context of a gloriously unconscious naivety! In fact I've often wondered why it is that guys like Hanover are even interested in sites like this one at all? - Seriously, wouldn't they get all they want from, say, checking baseball scores? Anyway, without intending to implicate your good self, there's a common type of inverted snobbery among people such that if they happen to encounter a term which is even slightly different from what they're used to hearing at the level, say, of a typical bar-room conversation, then, for some unfathomable reason (prejudice is a strange thing but that's a post I’ll never submit) that’s sufficient to set their teeth a-gnashing.
So in conclusion, though I haven’t really learned much about philosophy during my time in PF (Did anyone?) nonetheless it’s not been a complete waste, in that I have gained an awareness of how in practice human mentality is typically a greater barrier to understanding in people than any intellectual limitation! - All the best!
(In retrospect though, maybe in reality many of us subliminally view PF more as a means of indulging in an ego trip with philosophy being the almost incidental vehicle - this perhaps giving an ironic twist to the title of the op!)