`:: Wow, you're an idiot. Here's my imitation of Tao (include immature mocking tone): ``I think I know things. I think I can get people blocked. I think I know rules. Provide evidence you guys. Oh know there's some evidence, my bwain hurts, my bwain hurts, I forgot how to read, waaaaaaaah.`` It is a proposal you fucking idiot. It shows you're wrong. You refusing to read it does not make you right. It just makes you stupid. You call it ``undergraduate`` as if it lacks validity when you refuse to read it which makes you not only and idiot, but a stubborn baseless idiot. Block me, bitch, I fucking beg you. What's taking you so long.    === Practical proposal for change based on evidence provided above === Simple to read for assholes who refuse to read: Proposals: 1) change phrasing in intro 2) do not change focus of the majority of the page on the ``close circle`` 3) perhaps make ``writers`` section more reader friendly for casual readers with a chart, or something quick and simple to read 4) change naming of ``writers`` section to something reflected broader scope 5) I would like something like 3 & 4 to be closer to the top, but I do recognize Doom's concern that it weighs down the intro, so we can see for now if it works.  I'm suggesting no change beyond that, but I feel I have provided the beginning of sufficient evidence to support the necessity of this change.    `