No. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I am asking _why are you using inline styles?_ I'm trying to explain "stupidi

No. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I am asking _why are you using inline styles?_ I'm trying to explain "stupidity," not "malice." You're interpreting assumption of malice from my tone, style, and frustration. And I am frustrated, furious even. I'm furious about typesetting. I'd happily go down being that guy. The guy who foams at the mouth and rages about typesetting; what's more, when it's about liberating dyslexic users. Yes, go ape-shit about typesetting. I'm citing my sources, and making my arguments. You're not reading me aright. And that's a matter of "opinion filter"; that's all I can really say about that. We don't read the same self-help books. Where I come from, Nietzsche and Mencken are the tour de force, not diplomatic tongue. My apologies if you feel that is inappropriate for Web development practices; but I honestly do not care. And moreover, I just saw Torvalds flip off Nvidia. So, what? Who do I follow? Not one of you has the right idea on personal brand. I'm asking why. The question is why. Why? It's "why?" "Why?" I'm calling them "poor development practices." How do you get blame out of that? "(nonemotional deadpan) How?"