I spend a lot of time reading what other people write and making sure that it’s solid prior to giving it to clients - probably 300 - 500 documents a year. I would not say I’m a grammar Nazi though poor grammar and spelling most certainly annoy me. I’m more focused on quality of the whole thing. It is not only the meaning of the sentence but all that’s being written. Are the thoughts, observations, etc. expressed clearly? Is it written in such a manner that the audience will understand it? Does it communicate anything meaningful? Is it cohesive? Is it concise? When I write things myself, I can spend a fair bit of time writing and rewriting in an effort to be clear and to communicate what I wish to communicate. When people are sloppy, it kind of sets me off because it is obvious they have invested little in the quality of what they are producing. In those cases, I have a tendency to rip what they wrote to shreds.
You made a judgment of another person based on your subjective personal views. It's a broad sweeping generalization. It's not an observation.
The problem is that you are criticizing for a failure to use reason and logic and yet arrive at conclusions that seem to be biased, subjective, broad sweeping generalizations that don’t appear to be based on sound reasoning and logic. It’s not intended to be an insult. I’m having difficulty understanding how you reach what appear to be such black and white conclusions.
Edit: Reflecting on what bothers me here. I find much of your commentary interesting. It makes me think. However at the end of the day - are the conclusions right or wrong? Are they fair and balanced? It's something I'm sensitive to.