"Actually it doesn't. Structure was never a prerequisite for understanding. How else do you think we evolved the natural languages we use today at ALL?" Inaccurate. Syntax is vital for understanding and the structure of an argument is what leads to comprehension. You say "This post is about highlighting a trail or path of logic I don't expect most to get." Sadly, it's the lack of cohesion in your writing that means people won't get it. There's also a bizarre arrogance to this assumption, the point you're trying to make is very simple and could be summed up in a very easy to understand couple of sentences. Unfortunately, I've met your type before, I doubt that actual logic and a structured argument will make you understand. Please, continue with your ad hominem arguments.

[quote]Inaccurate. Syntax is vital for understanding and the structure of an argument is what leads to comprehension.[/quote] Not true. Thousands of years from the early stages of warfare/economical build or marksmanship into the cultural and linguistic arts has been well documented. We do not hold syntax in nearly as high regard as we do comprehension through logic patterns. Outside of the english language you really only have one language which prides itself on syntax: Japanese. And even then, there's well into the tens and hundreds of millions of words in that language. You can't learn it all. Think about ASL, American Sign Language. Now think about French Sign Language. Now think about Korean and Italian Sign Languages. They ALL are different structures. They all are different syntax's. The signs though, the logic of how they are applied, and the common etiquette afforded between two or more signers shows why the world simply can't acknowledge syntax as much as logic patterns. [quote]You say "This post is about highlighting a trail or path of logic I don't expect most to get." Sadly, it's the lack of cohesion in your writing that means people won't get it.[/quote] Another age old rule you just broke: Never speak for someone else. Never. I don't care if you are conditioned to write such ways. Don't do it. You speak for yourself and yourself only. You are, literally, the only individual who is on this particular topic and replied to me about the grammatical structure you are affiliated with. Personally speaking, I do not have an issue with that. The ever thoughtful inner conversation of what happens to the educational standard you studied to learn suddenly going to waste was always a fear when I was young. The thing is? 12% of people graduate college in their lifetime with a Bachelors degree or higher in the United States. [quote]Unfortunately, I've met your type before[/quote] Psychology professors would tell you it is impossible to meet someone's "type" as the individual results can never be collaborated. Profiles are detailed and can be very helpful is without question, but to meet another persons' "type" is not possible. Don't worry. You'll get older and this will become apparent to you without the need of this talk over a video game forum.