I just want to point out that what I said about a poorly written piece vs an at least competently written piece is a fact. It's not my opinion. And I am not saying it to be mean or dismissive or anything negative. My posts here have been (at least intended as) informational.
Oh come now, simply calling something a fact does not make it one. It's at least clear that some, indeed quite a few who've posted in this thread don't take quite such an uncompromising view on poor writing as you do, that surely disproves your contention no?
Even if it's true that a handful of you really take onboard badly written posts (in the context of a debate or discussion), the majority of people don't. Because the majority of people want to read something that is comprehensible.
You can call it "a handful" for rhetorical purposes but really you're speculating on proportions to prove a point. I could just as easily call it "several" or "more than just a few" or some other suitably useful quantity.
There's a reasonable degree of latitude between what is comprehensible and what is incomprehensible, I think within that latitude one's willingness to read on depends on things like content, intention, the likability of the writer, the nature of the discussion, and a broad range of other variables. Ultimately this makes generalisation about what people are prepared to read and what they're not prepared to read somewhat vague and probably also rather subjective.
If a reader has to struggle to understand an article in a newspaper, he is less likely to finish reading that article and thererfore the entire newspaper. One way newspapers try to encourage people to continue reading is to break the stories up into small paragraphs as opposed to large paragraphs which sometimes can look like daunting "walls of text". The words used are generally short and simple to understand.
Newspaper English is hardly a good model though. Indeed purists excoriate on the appalling influence Newspapers have had and site them as a cause for a proposed decline in the standards of modern written English, and you might say that the laziness of the reader is hardly an impetus to good writing. It's worth remembering that many see Newspaper English as the nadir of the written form.
Likewise if someone starts reading you the news in a scouse accent most people are less inclined to trust or take seriously that person. Whereas a newsreader speaking in perfect "Queen's English" is simply by association and the connotations of proper parlance more trustworthy/believable.
That's highly disputable. The BBC, Advertising companies, and others have done a good deal of research in to viewer/listener response to regional accents, the results are surprising actually. Northern English accents are often associated with honesty, clarity and plain speaking, the degree of this response seeming to increase as one goes further north, ending in Scotland whose accents are often used to advertise Banking and Financial services due to the (granted somewhat clichéd) association with prudence and parsimony as well as honesty etc.
Contrastingly "posh" accents and southern English accents often have connotations of dishonesty and condescension which listeners respond to less well.
And then there are regional variations in response to different regional accents which put grand generalisation even further beyond reach.
My point being that accents are a complicated area to make broad judgements about. As is reader response to "poorly" written English.
These are just facts of language. I am only pointing them out in the hope that some of you will put a little more effort into your writings (in the context of a debate or discussion, remember).
And I'm quite sure Nudeyorker was on my side.
Again, making some rather broad and extremely contentious and highly personal generalisations regarding what you think other people are willing to read, or how you presume others respond to certain things does not constitute a disquisition on the "facts of language", as you describe them.