You’ve got some skill with whimsy and scorn, don’t you? A piece of advice: there’s a certain subset of those with ADD/ADHD who love shifting without warning from subject to subject, from reference to reference. Most ‘normal’ people either don’t get most of the references or simply can’t keep up with the frequency of shifts, so they become either offended or simply lose interest, having written off the speaker or writer as Looney-Tunes on acid or some such metaphorical insult.

Of course I can’t say if you have this condition, but I do have this condition, so it’s a bit easier for me to keep up with your ‘channel-changing’. I sincerely appreciate how it feels to present your arguments this way, with the references that seem so blatantly obvious to you. But I would recommend that if you want your writing to be more widely accepted and appreciated, use fewer subject jumps, leaps of faith, and flights of fancy. I am *not* saying to “dumb it down”, but to make it more orderly.

Perhaps a metaphor would be more effective. You write like a race-car driver, weaving through traffic willy-nilly and taking curves like a bat out of hell…and even if you don’t take the checkered flag, you weren’t far behind. Problem is, away from the race track, those who drive like they’re still in a race tend to not just tick off the rest of the people on the road, but also put a lot of people in danger.

In other words, if you’re writing for yourself, burn rubber all you want. But if you’re writing to help others learn something new or to convince them of your argument, it’s time to obey the local traffic laws.

I hope that all helps.

Concerning the highlighted section, how about showing it to other military retirees to see what they think? I’m sure some won’t get it, but most will see and appreciate the tongue-in-cheek observation in the manner intended.