Moneroman88 is almost as good as AnnoyMint.
I would like to spend time elucidating you in regards to my "typed dialect detection algorithms" but I do not have time to reveal this to you now. Perhaps later I will take the time to strive to enlighten your terrible darkness, but not now.
In fact, my handlers are coming to take me back to my chambers now, and I am sorry to say I am unlikely ever to return to this forum.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. However, I must point out that you've egregiously misused "elucidating". Elucidate means "make (something) clear; explain" (it does not mean enlighten or educate (am I allowed to use parenthetical phrases as well?)). Therefore, its expected object is the matter in question. Perhaps changing it to read "...elucidating to you..." would be the simplest rectification.
As a side note, AnonyMint's use of "elucidating" in his old signature was correct.
I, sir, am one who is not slow to admit his failures which have a frequency with such a broad bandwidth that they approach vanishing but do not quite arrive as you have proven with your astute correction of my misuse of a particular word.
My failure here cannot be quantified by the typical exponential distribution as
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/f/c/1fc3278e5e69647a0918da52a44016d1.png and must be considered more along the lines of the decreasing rate where λ(t) is a decreasing function.
This reminds me of some of the disagreements I found in myself when reading the writings of Pythagoras. He had a tendency to think of errors in the sense of absolute and relative functions, and yet I feel he could have done much more if he had gone on to combine these concepts as I have.
I consider all of my errors therefore to be "resolute". Including the one you elucidated.
You would do well to imitate me, were you capable of such magnificence.
You are not.
