Of course I am ignorant of your meaning. (Otherwise what would be the need for the question in the first place?) Like Socrates, I do not shy from my ignorance; au contraire, I embrace it, lest I learn nothing from life. (Oh noes!!1!, did I just use a foreign phrase? Moi? :P)
Thank you for the advice. You do realize that more people speak English as a foreign language than as a mother tongue? Perhaps I speak this way for a reason. (Exception: please note that it is you who is the one who that has made repeated assumptions about me, not I about you.)

As someone who is au fait with psychology, I can tell you authoritatively and categorically that there is no such thing as “normal”. (Technically, the variance is too great for their to be any significance in something so blunt as a mean.) What a bland world you wish for, methinks, where everyone must conform to some arbitrary standard of normality. Viva la difference!

And Yes, as a matter of fact I did create that word for the purpose of conveying the semantic payload it delivers. (Thank you, but it’s not that difficult: just combine two or more Classical roots —— anyone can do it —— try it!) (To answer your next question, I do it because it is shorthand; it allows the encapsulation of an underlying concept in a beautifully succinct phrase. Classically, this is termed concinnity. Do you see its utility? Otherwise it would be necessary to write at length to describe in detail what I wish to convey —— so be thankful for small mercies.)

Ergo, whether you mean it or not, the inescapable rational conclusion you are broadcasting is that I talk normally (like you, presumably) or be silent. Which is a rather odd wish on a discussion forum, but not for a congregation of the faithful. (Because if everyone says the same things in the same ways we would all be just repeating each other. Which I would assert is a waste of bandwidth. YMMD) I would quote John Stuart Mill and a free society's prerequisite need for the civil exchange of differing points of view, but you would indubitably object.

Oh, all right: JS Mill (posthumously, 1859), On Liberty, p.72.
Mr Timboli, you are a disappointing conversationalist.

Scientific method uses the peer group to pursue the null hypothesis. The whole point is for others to find the faults in that which is posited by their peer.

Rather than all of this editorial opinion you have chosen to publish about who you think I am, perhaps if you concentrated on the topic we might actually come to some mutually agreeable concord? Revolutionary, I know.

For instance, when you wrote:
Try and follow this logic: the listener must attempt to re-word that which their interlocutor has said in the effort to demonstrate comprehension. Otherwise, even given a perfect recall, the speaker has no clue as to whether their audience has understood what was spoken. Do you see? You may wrote learn the utterances of Mandarin, but that does not mean you speak Chinese.

So of course I was attempting “to put words into [your] mouth” because this is precisely how to demonstrate comprehension, by re-wording that which was said, No?

Oh, and what’s wrong with trying to apply overheard wisdom? How on Earth would you learn without doing? You seem terrified of being seen to make a mistake. I have no such qualms. Mistakes are opportunities to learn. (BTW, your insult might have had more impact if, I don’t know, I hadn’t heard it from Gene Kelly in An American In Paris —— a movie made seventy years ago. :)
There is no fate but what we make. You may see an unavoidable calamity, but I see opportunity. My search for meaning does not imply a lack in you. Retract your claws, Sir!

I seek not to injure you by confronting your assertions, but instead to clarify what you wish to assert, in this our attempt to exchange meaning, via such a limited modulation of bare text devoid of gesticulation and facial cue , where one must strive harder to be understood than in a personal chat.

Let me start: We are in violent agreement. :)

Now, you expressed ignorance (quell horreur!) at my reference of work when describing the process of gleaning utilization from a conversation, as I said here: I’m not sure how this is unclear. Whilst I am online and conducting conversations such as this, I spend time collating both others’ and my responses.

To this you replied that: The personal angle is my attempt to explain how I —— hence personally, my only reliable proof —— use these social media conversations. See, you seem to have identified what I mean by “work” in your own initial comment:
That is the same “work”, Yes?

Please, since I cannot think of one, would you make some attempt at an example? One where a datestamp would be ineffective in minimizing confusion?

…

Now, having said that, there may be situations where there is no good answer to the dilemma of many short threads versus one very long discussion. For instance, if the list of replies numbers in the thousands of pages, I can see the limitations that such an overload of data would create.

It would be perfectly suitable to create a new, supplemental conversation to carry forward from that longer older one. It would aid utility to summarize the preceding in the early part of the latter, too: an index. (Flourishes like direct hyperlinks to particularly salient referent comments from the former discussion placed in the summary would be excellent addition.)

Do you see what I am trying to say? I am looking at a raw source of information (a conversation between multiple contributors over a length of time about a particular subject) and attempting to mine all the useful conclusions, with their context intact, from it.

Now, I am sure you have many questions. Please feel free to ask them. Or not. ./..

edit: bad link