Quote from: TheQuin on February 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM

On the contrary to the rest of your statement, I think many of the most knowledgeable people here have got far more important things to do with there time than trying to decipher your "text walls" to see if there is anything vaguely resembling coherent thinking hidden in there somewhere.

Have you ever read, say, an exposition of general relativity ? How many pages do you have to acquire, follow explanations, fill in gaps the author left, think through what the author is saying, not being quite sure that you're with him, before you actually start understanding the argument ? Compared to that level of difficulty, "working through my walls of text" is leisure in a blink of an eye. People not capable of doing this, can probably not reason on a sophisticated enough level to even start being useful. Usually, in texts like that, the problem is rather that the text is too concise, and that one has to fill in too many gaps. I err probably on the other side, I'm too verbose, too explicit, too much in simple details that could be filled in, in what I say.

I'll ask you: how many lines of explanation would you need to understand, from scratch, say, Pollard's rho attack on a Diffie-Hellman key exchange ? Suppose that this was an unknown thing, and that someone posted this here for the first time, somewhat hesitant maybe in the fluidity of his wordings. Would you also complain that there are "walls of text" if someone would try to give an argument explaining how it could be done in a page or two ? Do you think that your comments would be of any use ?

If you tell me that the few people capable of seeing that, are elsewhere, then one must conclude that the amount of brain power here is too low to be of any sensible use in the development of any form of advanced argument. That's also a possibility of course.