Frylock… your email is not utterly incomprehensible once you get the rhythm of the little combination Kabuki dance-sissy slap fight you are trying to do with him, but that’s about the best that can be said for it. It reads like a parody of the worst instincts of academic hack writing. It would not be out of place in the Onion.
Are you scared of this guy or what? You seem to be layering it up so as not to pee your pants.
So, did you get a response, Frylock? Are you willing to let us know what it said if/when you do?
Were I he, I’d be inclined to take the moral and intellectual high road, which I’d demonstrate in my two-word response.
To answer questions about the response: He did some philosophy of language back at me. (Generally something about the significance of different speech registers.) We’re probably going to talk about it in person later, since he likes to do his philosophical discussions in person rather than by email.
Geez, we people is weird ain’t we? 
Before talking about it though, I need to work up an argument to support my intuition that it’s literally impossible to communicate without going through the kind of thought process I outlined (in such excruciating and incomprehensible detail) in my email. I’m starting to think that might be too strong a thesis, though. Anyway, this is way beyond Pit material now I guess.
-FrL-
Our ordinarily fond feelings for you have not undergone any lasting modification, if one such as yourself was inclined to so think.
I concur with my esteemed colleague.
Anybody else want to see the response?
My heartfelt gratitude, and I appreciate the support given to my position. <bows>
In that case I withdraw all my prior criticism, along with any lingering sympathy I felt for your colleague. You are clearly perfectly matched, and I encourage you both to exhaust as much of the other’s time and attention as you can.
(Seriously, this is the most Onion-ready concept I’ve seen in a long time. “Philosophy students unable to agree on breakroom coffee brewing policy without discussion of semiotics.”)
Such a process may be a necessary step in analyzing the situation, but that doesn’t mean that it needs to be explicitly communicated.
The key to succinct writing is realizing that you don’t need to say EVERYTHING. Reading is inherently a creative act. Your job as a writer is to provide guideposts to lead the reader to where you want him to go. Explicitly spelling out every little step in the journey sends the message that you believe the reader to be incapable of making the necessary creative leaps on his own. Hence the criticism you received that your note sounded condescending.
I think you misunderstood. I wasn’t saying it needs to be explicitly communicated. In fact, the very point of the email I sent was that it is silly to suppose I need to explain any of the things I explained. That’s the sarcasm that’s been mentioned a few times in this thread.
-FrL-
Pretty much- it’s impossible to… communicate… detail in… email. 
I think there is some more comedy gold here. I would like to see an academic philosopher’s dictionary of net terms like LOL, AFAIK, BTW and so forth. I would like to see how long and convoluted email and discussion board posts become when we’re REALLY particular about EXACTLY which nuanced interpretation we intend.
I am so fucking glad I don’t work in a typical office environment.
Are you watching the current “Beauty and the Geek?” Early on the geeks had a meeting about some stupid thing they had to decide (which beauty to send to elimination, it appears) and they had a massive meeting with Robert’s Rule of Order and about 50 points of order to make this decision. It was absolutely classic.