Yes, I think I would see it as pedantically over-explaining the obvious. Whether your friend would interpret that as patronizing or insulting, or just hilariously getting the point across is something only you would know. I’m curious to know how it’s received.
It reads fine to me. It’s not difficult to understand, although it is a bit annoyingly hairsplitting and tad boring. However, that’s much of the reason I could never get into philosophy beyond, say, Plato. I could never wade through all the dense prose.
Not something I would ever write myself, but if this is the normal style of communication between you two, I don’t see the problem everyone is having. It’s hard for us to judge, since we don’t know typically how you two interact. I certainly know that my prose and language changes a bit depending on whom I’m communicating with.
Frylock, I once went down the same path you’re on now, and it’s a bad idea. It’s very easy to get in the habit of writing awful stuff that sounds “impressive” because the grammar is complicated. You should see some of my BS English essays.
The problem is not that it’s theoretically unclear, it’s that this message pointlessly convoluted. You don’t need this kind of writing, and it’s completely inappropriate for a personal discussion. You’re NOT talking about theory here, regardless of what you might be thinking. You’re talking to a human being. It doesn’t matter if he can deal with it: you’re not actually communicating on the level you need to be.
Yeah, I’d have to say that you may be learning the wrong thing. Philosophy is notorious for arbritrary complexity. (Statistics and Economics add a lot of nonsense labels to very simple ideas to distinguish themselves from other disciplines.) It’s no shame to be able to read something like that (I got your meaning fine). But being able to do so doesn’t mean you know when to do so. And it’s very rarely necessary or advised to write loopy sentences.
Related example: ever program? You can do all kinds of recursive loops, strange operations, incredibly intricate work. Problem is, that’s almost always a mistake. The harder is it to read through the code logically, the less useful it is. Other people need to be able to follow the code, and the easier anf faster they can do that, the better. And if there’s a flaw in the code, it’s very good if you can find it quickly.
I compared it to Nietzsche (yes, exxageration). I still can’t make heads nor tails of Nietzsche’s writings. They’re all written with seven layers of twisting sentences, which often concel very banal sayings, interspersed with incredibly grandiose and arrogant claptrap which often seems to have nothing to do with his arguments. The banal sayings may not seem impressive, but they are the important part. The faster you can exaplin them, the better you can expand on them.
You said “habit.” Because of that, I need to ask you this:
Do you think the email I showed is an example of how I write?
-FrL-
No. You can clearly write in human, as you’re doing so here.
I will grant that your OP may have worked as an inside joke. Just be aware that those of us on the outside don’t get it. More than just don’t get it, actually – we are completely bewildered by the idea that anyone could conceive of that writing as “clear”.
Yeah, I’ve kind of learned my lesson here, I think.
I feel really, really, really stupid, by the way. Just to let everyone know.
-FrL-
That’s really the name of the game here – making each other feel stupid by displaying our own superiority. There really ought to be a sticky about that. 
So you basically came in here to post this dense, ‘ain’t I all that’, pedantry, it seems.
Then, when it gets called what it is; boring, unclear and ill advised, you simply refuse to hear.
It reads just fine to you, must be that wonderful education! Sounds like that education has so filled you with yourself you can’t even hear the opinions you asked for. Only a powerful self delusion could make someone, in the face of this threads responses, conclude, “My education must be paying off if I’m the only one clever enough to think it’s clear and readable.” Only an academic could be that blind to truth, I believe.
And this,
Nobody thought that, you wanted us to think that and made in clear in your OP, but no one did. And yet, you’ve heard entirely what you wanted.
Huh?
Each of those adjectives I found in someone’s post, used to describe the email (or to describe me based on a reading of the email).
-FrL-
Also, Elbows, you seem to have missed the comment I made in the post you’re talking about:
-FrL-
I had a great English professor in first year English at University who did me a big favour - she wrote WORDY in red letters over my essays all the time. 
Frylock, what do they call a shovel where you work?
Anything but, I suppose. :rolleyes:
-FrL-
Wait, I like this game!
Ok, uh…
At my workplace, they call a shovel a three-dimensional heteronormative mono-metallic single-bladed phallusistic geo-soil-removal-device. 
And that’s just the common usage - wait’ll you see what they call it on the government order forms.
I got it–the first time I read the OP. I got your purpose and your point. I am trying to tell you that as a writing style, this is not your best choice or your best work. Now, if you wrote this deliberately in order to rile the recipient, that is your choice. But why should we approve or support? It’s irrelevant to me if you’re chiding, sarcastic etc–to me it reads like the author wanted to be humorous, but can’t pull the stick out of his ass long enough to actually be funny.
Sorry to beat up on you. I thought that your post re “I’ll go with my gut on good writing” exposed the essential conceit of the thread. If I was wrong, I apologize. But may I point out that the majority of posters do NOT agree with you re the style or the clarity of communication, so perhaps for you to reiterate that this is good, clear writing is a bit disingenuous?
Moving on–did you get a reply or a sock on the jaw?
ETA–never mind, Boyo and elbows said it better…
Personally I think this is becoming an over the top pile on now. Read Frylock’s post #66. I believe he gets it.
True enough–I just wanted to reply to his reply to my reply.
Oh, never mind. It’s getting less clear by each post. 
One thing I’ve learned is that angry emails posted in the Pit are RARELY received well.
Seconded. I for one had a hard time taking the question “Is this diplomatic” seriously, as it really looks more like “Can I get away with this kind of sophistry without getting my ass kicked?”