I am afraid you are reading things into what I am saying which I am not saying.
Please clarify why the world should use your form of communication.
I have not put forth a "form of communication", what I have done is addressed the issue of miscommunication.
I understand you are a legend in your own mind and obviously the most brilliant man you have ever met, but why must we all subscribe to your mode of communication.
No, brilliant I am not! I am a very slow learner and try to be very careful about what I take seriously. I do not, however, count myself as stupid. I did once (when I was young) but I have come to learn that most educated people are actually considerably more stupid than I (I hope that is not true of them all but I have no evidence to go by). Considering what they know, they do very little with it. I have a sign on my office wall which says "Knowledge is Power" "and the most popular abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity". In my reasonably long life I have come to realize that most everything which is put forth as fact is actually little more than some group's personal agenda.
Please clarify why we must follow your lead. Please make me realize why the opinions of most people are a waste of our (basically your) time, because you don't deem them worth of your "ivory tower" existence.
First of all, no one "must" do anything! In particular, I have no interest in "leading" anyone anywhere. I have found Paul and Aurino, two rather intelligent thoughtful people with whom I enjoy trading thoughts. There is always the possibility that others will pick up on the conversation (I met Aurino on this board and if I meet no one else it was worth my time).
Secondly, I think I am in good company thinking that the opinions of most people posting on this forum are a waste of time. Look at this forum once. We have what, a dozen people posting. How does that compare to the 5 billion on the earth or the 250 million in the US or to the 250,000 College professors? On the other hand, I have read all 16,268 posts posted before I began this note. I don't think I have been inconsiderate of their thoughts. I read quite a few forums but seldom post anywhere else; you should not feel shortchanged.
I implore you to make me understand even though my intellect is equal to a slime molds compared with your brilliance.
Now that is nothing but a childish tantrum. Your "intellect is equal to a slime molds"??? I am not insulting you, you are insulting yourself. I do not know if you are capable of understanding what I have to say and, if you are not, I really don't feel any compulsion to try to explain it to you. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt.
If you read this forum over, you will find it rampant with misunderstanding. Look at their attempts to define a concept. They have not yet been able to agree about the definition of a single term. Yet they talk talk talk for days on end! Reading all this has had an impact on me. Some 40 years ago, I discovered something which astounded me. I managed to prove that most of physics was tautological. Now the professional attitude is that I could not have done that for the very simple reason that it is impossible to do that. Ok, I will bow to their brilliance but it doesn't mean I have to take them seriously; I can still think about the implications of that discovery.
It turns out that what I discovered contains a very subtle underlying possibility. If most of physics constitutes a conceptual tautology (and most all scientific fields are consistent with those self same physics principles) then, as physics is the fundamental explanation of the Universe, one can conclude that the collection of concepts could very easily be isomorphic to an alternate interrelated collection of concepts.
Now, add to this the fact that the absolute internal consistency of those concepts is not yet totally defended (they are still investigating theories) and one must come to the conclusion that there exists a strong possibility of multiple (equally valid) explanations of reality.
If that is true then we are at quite a loss when it comes to understanding one another. However, my discovery provides a connection. What I have proved is that any collection of internally consistent concepts must contain a subset which can be interpreted as the fundamental concepts of physics (that tautology I spoke of). Thus it is that we do have a foundation about which it is possible to agree! And, surprise, surprise, it is not far at all from what the scientists tell us is "true".
Now, I can write down that tautology exactly. So, as I said earlier, essentially, if someone disagrees with the universality of science (that component which can be shown to be 100% internally consistent - i.e., my tautology) than I immediately know the situation is one of two distinct possibilities, neither of which are worth worrying about but for very different reasons. Now most scientists would agree with me (most of these off the wall opinions which are not consistent with science are not worth worrying about) but their attitude is just opinion, I can prove my position is valid!
And, if you doubt misunderstanding is rampant, then you are just ignorant!
Have fun -- Dick