Starbuck, I really don't appreciate you misinterpreting or misreading what I said. Not only did you make implicit, negative judgments about my character, but you are wrong on a few accounts also.
Typically, Starbuck, short and weak posts on here are generally regarded as ridiculous. I made such a one in here, using all-caps and vulgarity, in the belief that the voice (a concept you felt a compulsion to educate me on, and again, I vastly appreciate you telling me things I already know) of it would carry out its intentions. Clearly, I was somewhat wrong, and I have taken in to account for the lack of a reading voice for anything posted on the fora.
Even still, I had meant to make a succinct point with it. I see now how I might have left out important details, especially after seeing how you took my present indicative form to mean a past subjunctive in my final clause, and did not see how "syntax and clarity" meant to include the construction of "voice." I admit, I seriously considered adding it to the list, but didn't because I assumed others would pick it out of the modifying phrase.
I honestly am glad you saw right through my trap at the end of my rebuttal to the troll KillaBee. However, I do not agree with you that it is outside of this discussion. Have you read Flowers for Algernon? The other uses multiple misspellings and a limited vocabulary to show the reader his extreme mental retardation. Then, further in the story, he again shows us how his IQ has tripled by detailing awkward discussions he has had with everyone who knew him as the retarded janitor--including, even, his contempt for one of the scientists who operated on him because the scientist did not learn a language in which other work relating to his is written! However, we cannot use this story to say anything about the intelligence of the author.
I must say now that intelligence is more than just a simple "aptitude for learning." There is also a certain level of awareness that goes into it. Typically, intelligent people are more "aware" to subtleties than others. Also, more intelligent minds can emulate the minds of others, effectively putting themselves in others' shoes. Still, do not believe their resources are unlimited. There are some things they simply cannot pick up on, like everybody else, since they haven't yet had the experience required to do so. Still, they may be more inclined to do so or have a greater chance.
You seem to argue that learning can only happen when a teacher is instructing a student. This is not true. A student can be an erudite or an autodidact. You discount both. Why?
Then you misinterpret my conclusion. I can admit, the opening gerund modifying phrase should be "Practicing grammar and types of punctuation," but you paid little mind to the most important part of the periodic sentence: the middle. "Coupled with an awareness for syntax and clarity." If one has proper syntax (word placement, word order, word choice, style, dialect, etc.) and is clear, then it is rather inevitable that they are to be understood. As you can see, in my little verbial modifying phrase, I already countered the point you brought up by pay attention only to the final clause.
I am going to dismiss the claims that I am socially inept, that I attempted to talk over KillaBee's head, and that you are the local authority on my persona. However, I am more inclined to believe in multiple categories of intelligence than just one simplistic view of it. Furthermore, I was taught Gardner's theories as fact throughout my education, beginning in elementary school and carried on in middle and high school. I took from that experience to mean that everyone knew (at least) of it. Perhaps that was an improper observation.
As a final point, Starbuck, you came to the defense of a notorious and bad troll. It was my goal to keep his antics out of the serious discussion by having his focus turned towards me. And I already described to you my intentions in this thread in a private message, so I don't feel I need to explain why I ignored you in the first place.