I've been officially called on the carpet as being a "critter" and having "the most hilariously awful prose style [that this guy's] ever endured".  The commentor (whose name is simply Oof) obviously dislikes the way I write, which I apparently do to sound smart.

In my defense, the blog post to which he's referring was a rant that I had composed in one pass and posted almost two years ago.  It did contain several typos and misspellings, some run-on sentences, and was generally disorganized, I agree.  To say that I, as a subnormal type, go straight to malapropisms is a bit far-fetched.  Did I include any malapropisms in my text? I don't believe so.  Partial thoughts and sentences?  Sure.  It was a rant, written the way I was thinking it as I was thinking it.  I didn't go back and proofread it (though perhaps I should have in retrospect), nor did I reorganize it.  It was a stream of consciousness jotted down.  It was not written in a manner to win a Pulitzer.

That said, however, I would like to get a consensus.  Is my writing style (my prose) difficult to read?  Is it awful?  Does it sound like I'm trying to be pretentious and self-absorbed?  Is it difficult to understand?  Unapproachable?

I'd like an honest set of constructive responses so that I might better target my future posts and comments.  It is sincerely my goal to make the blog approachable and if I've not been achieving that to this point then shame on me for missing the mark.