How then can anything not understood, at least not fully, ever even at all be discussed? Actually, its easy. Indeed, people so often have whatsoever no idea what they are talking about! The question at all better reframed, remains: How to approach the unknown with greater lucidity and more productively? 

The attentive and detail oriented careful work of ongoing miscommunication/ambiguity detection and repair, is only consistent with faliblism and learning from mistakes. And close collaboration all therein, but another application of the effort at closer engagement so integral to rapport building, authentic friendship, autonomy, intrinsic fulfillment, Eudemonia and the conjectural FoolQuest.com success strategy most broadly.

In personal response to  any serious writing, let the reader experience whatever their own emotions, and own them. But never to put the cart before the horse: Particularly as at all bearing in mind authorial intent to begin with, relevant criticism, even however frank, first requires comprehension, and therefore the mitigation of incomprehension. Anything less remains irritatingly obtuse and irrelevant.  

Please instead, gentle reader, clearly, the lucid, risk free, friendly and optimally reciprocally fully engaged effort and course of action for us to undertake together...

In order to actively and directly help correct and improve howsoever flawed or unclear writing, kindly if ever so inclined, it may first remain necessary closely to collaborate with the writer. To read, examine and struggle together in order to fathom the meaning, with whatever howsoever such flawed or unclear text, even going line by line, meticulously. Is this not obvious?

Moreover, and sad to say, as for anyone not only balking but actually taking such umbrage as so many have, how serious a prospective writing collaborator (as invited herein), even only for creative writing (fiction), much less also entrepreneurial business or project planning? But not to get ahead of ourselves...

 

Believe me that if I already knew and understood whatever specific ambiguities or communications errors remain, I would already have revised accordingly.

Hostility all thus becomes entirely uncalled for. Please therefore remain civil. Even should our agendas differ.

Alas that merely complaining of incomprehension, even however demandingly, is not even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely and attentively requesting specific particular clarification. Indeed actually paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only precisely such genuine, sustained and salient engagement, even at all actually demonstrates effort and persistence, incrementally to gain and improve comprehension.

And all thence, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying most reasonably and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

Indeed, intelligible and actionable requests for clarification themselves need to be specific of particular words and phrases. And they need to question or indicate specific ambiguities in message content, and not just form.

And ongoing Dialectical collaborative miscommunication detection and repair remains a crucial aspect of optimal reciprocal engagement, a core value and objective of this very website, FoolQuest.com

Gentle reader, anything that can be done to help anyone else to read whatever prose, then helps in continual rewriting and improvement. After all, much like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, and never a waste of time.

But what if, for whatever conceivable reasons, anyone simply does not want to read and even just refuses to? Answer: No one actually needs any help in not reading. And reciprocally, not reading remains so vastly unhelpful. And yet, obdurate and even actively hostile and self righteously uncooperative and even abusive non readers, so often feel entitled somehow, to something more.

What then if anything, does the author truly owe to their audience? Emphatically, no writer or speaker must ever impose responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, onto whatever audience so troubled and put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers the imposition of needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate or confused writer, even from antiquity, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation plaguing any such future readers, even across the ages, unto the present day and into the future. It's never easy.

    

Explicitly, this is to apologize most profusely and contritely for any and all difficulty in browsing FoolQuest.com Believe me, I am no deliberate obscurantist or bullshitter! Because, honestly, if only I already knew whatever remains unclear in message content herein, how so and why, without reservation, I would already have revised accordingly. Otherwise, I'm bound to guess wrong, bringing about only further confusion and impatience.

 

So please, lets just go over it all, carefully, line by line, as ever necessary. Do kindly explain in careful detail, whatever it is that is not understood, how so and why, in message content and in such terms. And meanwhile withhold all pedantic and formal non sequitur and disengaged generality. I do as much for others. So, why all the fuss?

Alas then that there remain those may even openly and explicitly regard whatever they do not understand, as possible threat, best to be suppressed for the sake of public safety from even possible charlatans and in order to maintain superficial harmony. All thereby to bring down others instead of enlightening themselves.

Dagnabit! I'm just sick to death of being drawn in to making effort to explain myself to impatient and uninterested people who simply are not interested enough in the first place, to help and explain whatever difficulty as arising with whatever text. Don't be like that! Instead, always be specific to whatever prose at hand, and whatever problems thereof. Don't just robotically regurgitate and spout whatever kind of rules.

And don't expect whatever understanding to just dawn upon others via ongoing natural behavioral conditioning into peer conformity out from multiple experiences. Don't play such annoying guessing games. Don't self-righteously pressure and bully by persistently dropping sly hints and making implicit demands, instead of actually just explaining. Never be such an Inductivist utter tool.

In exasperation, my emphatic request: Anyone, gentle reader, per chance message recipient, please just take the trouble and actually point out to me whatever specifically remains howsoever unclear to them, point by point, in any of my text, and then explain to me: specifically how and why the former remains howsoever ambiguous and unclear.

Thus allowing the message sender, even hypothetically, yours truly, to attempt whatever revision and clarification of message content, for all for the sake of partnership in communications struggle, then to return to whatever thus rewritten text, and discover how successfully revision and clarification of message content has been achieved. And to repeat iterative process as many times as necessary, successively to render whatever was unclear, at last fully lucid.

There truly is no good substitute for all such lucid and meticulous effort. Especially not for me.

Alas then that not everyone seems willing and able. 

According to chat GBT:

"Message content" refers to the actual information or idea being conveyed within a message, while "message form" refers to the way that information is structured, presented, or formatted, including elements like language, syntax, tone, and style - essentially, "what is said" versus "how it is said." 
 

Key points to remember:

• Content is the meaning: The core idea, facts, and details within a message.
• Form is the structure: The way the message is organized, including word choice, sentence structure, and presentation format.

Absolutely, critique even nitpicking writing style and authorial voice, or even hypertext webdesign, is all fine and good, even tremendously valuable, but only first afforded lucid context via the achievement of Intersubjectivity to overcome even reciprocal incomprehension. Criticism/critique of whatever stylistic choice or aspect of message form, will ever be so vastly improved first by the gleaning of its intent. Then useful response, even however harsh as might be, just flows!

 

But otherwise only ensues the irritation of boundlessly ignorant and confident advice with no connection, neither to reality nor to authorial intent. This is not care and interest, but blithe and undue antipathy as so very characteristic of the typical Anti-Socratic. This is not helping, but domination by inattention and Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly and toxic invalidation. whereas, in order actually to cooperate, there can be no substitution, first of all, for the even philosophical striving at lucid question or indication of whatever discrete ambiguity in specific message content as well distinct from message form.

 

Alas then, that there can be no end of possible non sequitur, sophistry, conflation and digression. Indeed, to begin with, it may even still be claimed that message form and substance of message content, remain inextricable.

 

Notwithstanding and nevertheless, Socrates in delving into nature of things, didactically, frequently questioned the meaning of utterances, of linguistic expressions, as arising at all attempting any answer to such open ended conundrums whereof his sharp intellect was always so fond. And thus by process of elimination, arriving at enlightenment by refutation which remains still to this day, the core value of modern Scientific Rationalism and Scientific Method.

 

And all the while, Socrates seldom trifles with such formalities as grammar. At least never in such terms.

 

Whereas prominent linguist and malignant political obfuscator Noam Chomsky famously examined the formal grammar even of explicitly crafted sample meaningless sentences or: word salad.

 

Clearly then, with all due respect to Marshal McLuhan, the distinction ever at hand, between message form and message content, so obviously and generally obtains. And in the immortal exasperation of Joe Bob Briggs: “I'm surprised I have to explain these things!”

 

Nevertheless there may also be framed questions and points that can be formal and substantive all at once, because, after all, form only exists in the first place, to convey content. Even if we all strive to parse and decode message content, and Chomsky severs the link between message form and message content entirely.

 

And yet, specific points and questions as to message content can be helpful, even if they are howsoever, at the same time, howsoever formal or even grammatical. In case of communications failure, it will be only any non sequitur response that quite simply do not address meaning and message content, and at all distinctly in such terms, remaining such frustratingly obtuse pedantry. 

 

Instead, a formal point, such as of grammar, must not only explicitly correlate to words in sequence within linguistic expression, but whatever consequent communications failure and ambiguity in message content. Indeed from whatsoever any defect in form, indeed such as grammar, that must be indicated particularly and explicitly. Because bad grammar etc., such as that does not actually obscure message content, while generally all fine and good to point out, however incidentally, simply does not contribute to Socratic Dialectic of ongoing collaboration in miscommunication detection and repair.

Socratic Wisdom accrues only in gauging any scope and measure of one's own ignorance. Indeed, frequently including the realization of how one may barely even suspect what and how much one simply does not know or understand. But Socratic Dialectical method and the effort at questioning at least begins to shed any light thereupon. And all such good faith effort at clear thinking especially bears upon ferreting out and zeroing into the detection of specific and particular communications failure and discrete points of linguistic or other ambiguity. Although the results of even minimal effort and focus defy prediction and guarantee. And the undue shame driven rejection and determination to escape such necessity, remains anti-intellectual and irresponsible.

It remains generally possible to question message content. Hence, only formulate any question whatsoever, regarding meaning of message content of any written or spoken linguistic expression. Then strive to answer whatever your own question. If you fail, and the answer then remains unknown, then congratulations! Mission accomplished. You have detected and provided exposition upon one or another specific discrete communication failure, perhaps of linguistic or other ambiguity.

Subject matter understood to exceed message content at hand, remains entirely another matter. But questions indeed of intended scope of message content of linguistic expressions, ever should such remain howsoever unclear, can be both pertinent and important. Moreover, omission to be detected, are often at the root of ambiguity. No further to digress, however. 

Alas then, ever to reiterate, that merely complaining of incomprehension, is not even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely requesting specific particular clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only the latter even actually expresses any open interest. While the former likely remains merely entrapment into the closed stone-deaf powerplay toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly invalidation. Indeed, even tactics of soft-flame and derisive incomprehension.

Disengaged and disconnected pedantic abstraction remains unclear and unhelpful. Denying distinction between map and territory, does seem somewhat obtuse. But then, any linguistic expression to begin with, is already referential like a map. However, the matter at hand is no mere philosophical abstract question of whether distinction as herein under consideration truly exists, as a matter of convoluted technicality and deepest sense, but a practical matter of utility in desired and required lucid and useful quality feedback. Hence, if indeed the distinction is truly indistinct and unknown, then for purpose at hand, adequate distinction must be discovered. Therefore, that very question had better be found interesting instead of just boring and crimestopped. 

 

All nevertheless: Emphatically, no writer or speaker must ever impose responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, onto whatever audience so troubled and put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate or confused writer, even from antiquity, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation plaguing any such future readers, even across the ages, unto the present day and into the future. It's never easy.

    

Indeed, even actually just maybe any literal matter of life and death! For prime example, how the warrior sage Carl von Clausewitz lay sick and dying as he penned his celebrated great work, cut short of the needed time to edit and revise his tortured prose into anything more polished. And no end of mischief and confusion in history ensuing, blood and mayhem attending thereupon, resultant only from his flawed composition as remaining so entirely distinct from his sober Literary intent.

Alas, ever to reiterate, that merely complaining of incomprehension, is not even remotely the same thing as actually explaining whatever difficulty and engaging and genuinely requesting specific particular clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only such the latter effort even actually at all embarks upon Socratic Dialectical collaboration in miscommunication detection and repair. Whereas merely complaining of incomprehension  without attending to ensuing attempted clarification, likely remains merely another tar baby entrapment into the closed stone-deaf powerplay toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly invalidation.

Indeed, all as directly preceding only remains precisely why, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying most reasonably and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

Pertinent critique may therefore first require adequate comprehension and Intersubjectivity, the condition wherein comprehension of message content and subject matter on the part of the message recipient, draws ever closer in correspondence to whatever the intended meaning of message content and subject matter on the part of the message sender.

And only shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly and consistently. Therefore, to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new. After all, the clear and concise mainstay of science and philosophy whereupon we all rely, was once the cutting edge of challenging thought. The well familiar clear and concise great ideas whereupon we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line, word by word again and again.

 

Because, like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time. And hence the all-important ongoing cycle of revision and review, again and again, inherent to the excellent conversationally adequate ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. Indeed of perpetual communications struggle as wherein, Mistakes are the Essence. And all hence all as follows:  

Dynamic Discord comes as the somewhat obscure esoteric appellation bestowed unto the precept of disorder and disharmony, in human affairs as in nature, not as principally destructive and therefore to be shunned and reviled, but just the opposite, to be embraced and dully appreciated as so lively, inspirational, vastly creative and greatly productive.  

Alas that many so thin skinned who so all too often take such dreadful umbrage and insult at criticism even in very principle, not surprisingly, may tend also at the same time, in epitome of self-fulfilling prophesy, to equate argument or debate with quarrel and strife. And alas that the graceful and nigh dharmic epitome of tact grows ever more precious and scarce, while the blight of angry hypocrisy remains all too natural, common and vulgar to fill the vacuum. And therefore, all too often, those, so consumed with Anti-Critical Bias, who in such totality reject everything argumentative, far from thereby becoming so genial, mild and peaceable, more often instead, whether deviously or blatantly, blithely or calculatingly, indeed resort only to the most determined and relentless coercion and manipulation.

And thus the the unfettered desperation to impose order by any means necessary, shall be what only escalates every chaos and strife. Or else, at best, without recourse to debating reasoned arguments, discourse in case of disagreement, may be reduced to a deadlock of endless gainsaying entirely without any attempt at rational support. All hence so clearly, the beneficial effect upon discourse of argument/debate, remains undeniably crucial and profound. 

Moreover, much as indeed argument, Socratic Dialectic, the art of controversy and the invited and appreciated exchange of criticism, also including Literary critique, all remain so indispensable to the paradoxically disciplined though even somewhat chaotic discourse possible, indeed vital and integrally feasible even in case of the most extreme and heated disagreement...

similarly:

Excellent conversationally adequate ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair (wherein Mistakes are the Essence), remains the paradoxically disciplined discourse possible, vital and integral to communications struggle, feasible even throughout circumstances actually of the very most baffling reciprocal incomprehension. 

Indeed, communications struggle wherein Mistakes are the Essence, indeed excellent conversationally adequate ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair, remains indispensable ever to the achievement of Intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity being such conditions wherein comprehension of message content by the message recipient, comes ever closer into correspondence with the intended message content of the message sender. Otherwise, communications struggle only bogs down into sheer Zen futility of utter Wittgensteinean paralysis.

Therefore, clearly, the beneficial effect upon discourse, of communications struggle wherein Mistakes are the Essence, indeed of excellent conversationally adequate ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair, remains no less profoundly crucial than argument/debate, Socratic Dialectic, the art of controversy and the invited and appreciated exchange of criticism also including Literary critique. 

      Them “Big words” are only “big” because other's curiosity, intellect, or hunger for knowledge is small.

      — Quant

For one specific problem, given that all subordinate clauses remain both integral and salient, not every long sentence can or should be shortened. Not if thereby merely oversimplified and distorted via whatever injuriously blithe truncation of pertinent and integral salient subordinate clauses. For only simple run on sentences, like unto garden worms, may even thrive and survive being chopped up alive, into the shorter sentences that they really were all along. Whereas, many perfectly fine long sentences remain nevertheless, consummately balanced, and therefore actually unbalanced and injured by subsequent careless semiliterate truncation. And thus thereby not clarified at all, but actually just the opposite.

Indeed, key to better comprehension may be found in more effective and fully literate reading strategy than just even howsoever somewhat robotic and linear parsing. Specifically, in first taking an overview and breakdown of sentence structure. Indeed in musical cadence, via interpretation which means choosing points of emphasis in prose much as out from musical notation of any musical score. Otherwise, any rote robotic performance, only grates upon the ear. But not to digress.

Case in point:

In all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying most reasonably and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

And note how throughout the following, form and structure are expounded, only via coherent citation of specific message content:

 

For reasons, someone takes action regarding something then further qualified.

Why: reasons = Indeed in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking,

Who: someone = any serious author

How: action = retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying most reasonably and precisely,

What: something = whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback

As specifically: qualifications = as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.
 

Be all such as may:

Precisely as Socrates so famously declares: “An unexamined life is not worth the living for a human being.” Indeed, as Aristotle maintains: “All things in life are philosophical.” Especially including communications struggle. And this should be taken as only normal within the human condition. Wherein, to quote William James: "Philosophy is the unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly." Not just individually within solitary inner life, but actually even in dialogue together.

Alas then how all too often instead, bypassing ensues. For bypassing denotes the all too prevailing situation or circumstances of talking past one another in blithe and chronically unaware reciprocal communications failure and incomprehension, wherein, not even disagreement can be possible. But not even reciprocal incomprehension and confusion outright, need constitute any barrier, roadblock or menace of perfidious unknown intention. Indeed, only a barest beginning from Socratic Wisdom and the ongoing Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. Even reciprocal incomprehension and confusion outright, need not disengage discourse. Indeed, the ongoing Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair by willing participants, by that token, becomes a shared responsibility. And there remains no sin in just trying to clarify or to understand. Indeed, both are required. All responsible parties must therefore continue to show interest.

Because, for fully engaged ongoing Dialectical collaborative miscommunication detection and repair, indeed nothing less than open engagement with expression not as yet fully understood by the message recipient, and/or fully clarified by the message sender, has been discovered to remain ever crucial and key to conversationally adequacy. Indeed, because Mistakes are the Essence, at all and toward the achievement of Intersubjectivity wherein the comprehension of message content by the recipient, comes ever closer into correspondence with the intended message content of the sender.

And all via savvy Socratic Dialectical process of interrogation delving into whatever ambiguities actually in message content, rather than unhelpful and mechanical pedantry harping upon formal points and errors such as those of grammar or even whatever standardized writing style guidelines or even howsoever correct webdesign. 

And yes, the above still all applies even should to begin with, formal points and errors such as those of grammar etc., or even deviation from whatever standardized writing style, be perceived as causal of subsequent communications failure and resultant incomprehension. Indeed, aforesaid communications failure in turn regarded as merely the symptom of whatever formal points or errors. Even in such case, the primary objective of fully engaged ongoing Dialectical collaborative miscommunication detection and repair, in accord with solution finding as distinct from problem solving, remains actually, if such may be, yes: Actually treatment of aforesaid "mere" symptom, regardless of any whatever formal causes.  - formal causes quite simply let all thereby to take care of themselves.

It all comes down to the distinction between Rules Based problem solving and Case Based solution finding: Because, when grammatical or whatever other formal errors are detected, then the problem to solve, becomes how to correct whatever such formal errors, and even to stamp out all variation from whatever howsoever approved and standardized writing style.

Indeed, meaning and authorial intent all be damned as impertinent to pristine, simple and correct writing. That is, according to all such simplistic and uncomplicated utilitarian anti-intellectual blithe and ever unquestioned ideological conviction. 

And alas all therefore, no other feedback or deeper engagement shall be forthcoming in case of communications failure, until whatever such righteous and needed correction, first. Only afterwards, indeed if ever, might ensue any consideration of meaning and authorial intent.

But any such unimaginatively conventional strategy remains only one possible means to a greater end of raising signal out from noise, of getting across an idea that isn't quite coming through. And all manner of change and improvement opens up, from any broader objective of clarification, once ambiguity of message content will be detected and brought to light. And typically, all with an additional happy side effect of correct grammar and scintillating writing style. 

For solution finding exceeds mere problem solving. And all manner of change and improvement open up, from any broader objective of clarification, once ambiguity of message content will be brought to light. And typically, all with an additional happy side effect of more correct writing.

And whereas any even somewhat pedantic and mechanical Rules Based Reasoning as of mere problem solving as of grammatical or otherwise formal correction along with standardization of writing style, ever remains more simple, cretin efficient and predictable, also easier to modify ever as needed: Nevertheless, in the alternative, Case Based Reasoning has much else to recommend. For Case Based Reasoning, both in general and particularly such as extolled herein throughout to the matter at hand, remains ever more knowledgeable and adaptable to complex and ambiguous data under ever evolving new circumstances. Indeed, therefore with greater relevance achievable via tailored and personalized solution finding, and thus greater end user satisfaction.

Unlike fully engaged Socratic Dialectic, such as that of collaborative miscommunication repair, nothing new will be learned in hidebound and dull-witted pedantry to formal correction. Alas, normatively closed minded irrelevance remaining endemic in the death throws ending the lifecycle of complex social systems, any embrace of internally efficiency even arbitrarily as via whatever implementation of Rules Based Reasoning, comes in rejection of Case Based Reasoning with relevance and utility for end users in the outside real world beyond the collective introversion of merely sustaining best efficiency of whatever bureaucratically minded routine, all regardless.

Alas all too often only ensues, either obscurantism, meaning deliberate unclarity and refusal to explain, on the part of the message sender, and/or, on the part of any message recipient (primary or incidental viewer, hearer, or reader) the deviously unreceptive and uncooperative bad faith of mean spirited and contemptuous enmity and mockery that has been named: derisive incomprehension.

Alas that merely complaining of incomprehension, even howsoever entrenched so persistently and incessantly, is never even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely requesting specific particular clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only the latter even actually expresses any open interest. While the former likely remains merely entrapment into the tar baby of closed stone-deaf powerplay toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly invalidation.

Indeed, contrary to the malignant lessons of the Anti-Socratic, appreciated and invited criticism and controversy, taken in spirit as intended, remain nothing threatening or unpleasant, but the most vociferous great fun for all involved. Indeed, inherently friendly, valuable, an expression of abiding respect. But neurotic and toxic antidemocratic cultural norms all notwithstanding, Anti-Critically Biased indignation, whenever problems are raised, will surely sabotage even the most modest endeavor, let alone most challenging and loftiest of cherished burning ambition.

Therefore, please, in case of perfectly honest incomprehension, if anything truly remains unclear: Rather than vaguely denouncing whatever perceived shortcomings or harping upon formal errors, grammatical, or of whatever expected and demanded conformity to stylistic conventions and simplistic declining literacy... — Or howsoever otherwise, indeed even debilitating soft-flame tactics of generally attacking writing style or even webdesign to the exclusion and evasion of substance... — Or even complaining about anything so subjective and indirect as whatever ones own emotional reaction, even however picayune and trivial...

Instead first of all, freely indicate or question whatever in the message content, subject matter or meaning, that remains howsoever unclear... — Indeed, whatever remains actually not understood. There will be no offence therein. Quite the contrary.

Therefore, never let doubt silence and paralyze, much less provoke undue hostility. And don't just spout ever the same inane and clichéd bad writing advice, but fully engage. Yes, even without agreement first, unguardedly to engage with the new and as yet unknown. What a concept: The Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. 

Because: Honestly, I am no deliberate obscurantist or bullshitter! Because, if only I already knew whatever remains unclear in message content herein, how so and why, I would already have revised accordingly. Otherwise, I'm bound to guess wrong, bringing about only further confusion.

And so please, lets just go over it all, carefully, line by line, as ever necessary. And explain whatever it is that is not understood, in message content and subject matter, and in such terms, how so and why. And all the while, withholding all obtuse pedantic non sequitur as instead only treating message form. I do as much for others. So, why all the fuss?

Sorry to become so brusque, gentle reader, but the point seemingly escapes and somehow repeatedly and persistently fails to come across!  

Can you believe and relate?