I have not one single time invoked any kind of authority to make the points I'm making. It was only below, after you've (ironically) invoked the writer's credentials and insultingly proclaimed I never should be allowed to ever teach anything, that I let you know my qualifications.

I do justify why simplicity and succinctness are better than meandering. More superfluous information obscures the "nugget" or the essence of we really want to talk about. Strip away the accessory, write the simplest, most lucid explanation that captures the idea, and you will see the concepts and connections in their elegance, more clearly than when that is obscured in the middle of pages and pages of talk. In summary: "idea" is more understandable than "idea+cruft".

What do you mean no reason why? Are you expecting a scientific trial? I'm sorry to disappoint you: these are but my opinions.

Please stop now. Regardless of who's right, and you probably both are, this is the kind of tedious spat we don't need.

You're absolutely right. It feels frustrating for your comment to met with ill-faith attacks and insults but that's no excuse to lower the level in turn. Apologies for that.

The comment of yours that I responded to only has an allusion to a quotation and nothing else substantiating any of your points. Yes if you're going to proclaim and critize on something material (like the best way to teach someone something) I expect you to have scientific trials.

Please stop now. Regardless of who's right (which you probably both are) this is the kind of tedious spat we don't need.