> Ok, but I do not see how this is relevant to this whole discussion
groups tend to gravitate towards each other or coalesce around material indicators of similar interests. for example, people who enjoy the same music from the same artist see the artists t-shirt and form a relationship with each other.
similarly, some with a penchant for speaking or writing in a particular way, maybe a way that others would describe as "haughty", "cultured" - or as some might argue, "correct" - tend to gravitate towards each other as well.
the point is sometimes shitty communication is fine because you can just keep engaging as long as you are friends - or at least respectful. trying harder is simply way too tedious for the medium of the internet.
Ok, but this is an international, multicultural forum, where it is supposed that different people come to exchange. Under the umbrella of the "intellectual curiosity relevant", all trades - here, you will meet the different, and many in the same page. Some people will think and write this way - it's the way they are, and very legitimate -, you know it in advance coming here, that you will interact with them.
Edit: possibly more clearly, if somebody writes in a certain way, and judges those formulations to be "properly working", do not expect stylistic changes just because. Joyce would not write like Proust - not just that they hated each other, simply that one would say "The formulations are or should be clear, why the efs should I write like somebody else!".
(Differences granted, I would call it a base that participants do not post replies like "I judged the language, hence BS", as some member took the liberty nearby - just saying. It is logically offensive.)
> cultured ... correct
It is not the same. There is no intention to appear "cultured"; "correct" instead is something that some may want to seek, for many reasons - to give the chance of interpreting correctly to anyone who wants to, for example. If "correct" stresses an idea of "cultured", that is a side effect. Surely many of us write this way (with more or less "care").
> engaging ... the medium of the internet
Ok, you (say) "will keep on chatting", but where is the exchange? Of what? We are dropping payloads here. Sure, «sometimes» other communicational factors prevail (stag party, whatever) but on HN... Mind you: flexibly, respecting a sense of community (I took the liberty of a rare off-topic joke just hours ago elsewhere, still curiosity-relevant hopefully), but this is supposed to be a purposeful environment.
Somebody comes with the idea that "reading is secondary", he will get the reply that Woody Allen joked that "women are secondary, breathing comes later" - and what comes first must then be cultivation. That books are a most respect deserving creation - the preservation of wisdom -, hence his perspective some will label "blasphemy", not just "disagreeable". That he may be missing a perspective, and that it may be better if one notices - just in case some inner gears start moving (very respectfully). That if he arrives to comparing books and a social website which, posts-wise, typically reveals civil devastation, he may be reminded that "books are selected company" - shocking that nowadays some may call this "smug", because normally the framework would be to make optimal choices!
groups tend to gravitate towards each other or coalesce around material indicators of similar interests. for example, people who enjoy the same music from the same artist see the artists t-shirt and form a relationship with each other.
similarly, some with a penchant for speaking or writing in a particular way, maybe a way that others would describe as "haughty", "cultured" - or as some might argue, "correct" - tend to gravitate towards each other as well.
the point is sometimes shitty communication is fine because you can just keep engaging as long as you are friends - or at least respectful. trying harder is simply way too tedious for the medium of the internet.
edit: i meant << guillemets >>. mb