"Actually it doesn't. Structure was never a prerequisite for understanding. How else do you think we evolved the natural languages we use today at ALL?" Inaccurate. Syntax is vital for understanding and the structure of an argument is what leads to comprehension. You say "This post is about highlighting a trail or path of logic I don't expect most to get." Sadly, it's the lack of cohesion in your writing that means people won't get it. There's also a bizarre arrogance to this assumption, the point you're trying to make is very simple and could be summed up in a very easy to understand couple of sentences. Unfortunately, I've met your type before, I doubt that actual logic and a structured argument will make you understand. Please, continue with your ad hominem arguments.