You have posted a genuine "I Know You Are But What Am I" reply! Where have you been all these years??

"We usually do well in the areas we find more interesting, because we practice them more and therefore develop more skill. If you are the representative of the conservatives, grammar is not their strong point."

Hmm, I assume you are addressing me.

Duh. The post is in reply to you.

I have never claimed I represented conservatives or Republicians-

But you can claim to speak for Democrats' talents and proclivities, in a derogatory way that identifies them as the Other. You also have a history of espousing conservative and/or Republican positions.

The later identifies you as a conservative and/or Republican. The former makes you an acceptable proxy for that group in the little rhetorical world you have created, as you have seen fit to categorize the entire opposition group without a shred of support. We will charitably not count the book you cite that you have not read. Sources must be read to be cited credibly. (D- on your bibliography.)

but as I recall you have claimed you were a Republican.

I am registered in the Republican party, as I have said before, because I wish to cast meaningful votes in local elections, which are largely determined at the primary level. It is purely an alliance of convenience, and it certainly doesn't make me any friendlier to the derogatory statement you made about Democrats that refers to fully 7/8 of my family. Nor does it make your statement about Democrats in any way accurate.

My party affiliation is not a claim, but a fact. It is not up for debate. You can either take it as a fact, or you can call me a liar. Your use of the word "claim", which implies that I am untrustworthy without actually coming out and saying so, is just as wrong as your attempt to pass off your unsupported statement about Democrats as a fact.

Now, you seem to want to talk about relative "proficiency, conservative and liberal".

You seem to want to talk about proficiency, but only when you can make some flip, unsupported, insulting remark about Democrats.

And seems like you are claiming that "we" [I assume you mean Liberal Republicans] are more skillful at English. [underline mine]

[Correction: That would be "more skilled in" or "more skillful with". Skills imply tools. As one cannot be more skilled at a hammer, one cannot be more skilled at English. You may have been looking for the concept of "talent", in which "English" is treated as a metaphor for literary expression, an art.]

That's "we" in the sense of human beings, without more subdivisions. I start from the largest set and draw more specific comparisons from there. I have become extremely specific, centering my attention on you personally, so that you may develop some appreciation for the corrosive effect of your reliance on unsupported overgeneralizations. My rash hope that you can pay attention to this, joined to my belief that you have an empathic bone somewhere in your head, encourages me to reply.

It doesn't surprise me that you would start with a partisan, shallow set, nor does it surprise me that you would attempt to redefine my words in a way that puts the narrowest possible spin on them. Partisan, shallow and narrow are what your original argument exemplifies.

Perhaps to fortify your case you could provide a short demonstration of your superior skill.

90% of my posts will suffice.

But you shouldn't be under the impression that you have entered some contest with me- I'm not representing the conservative Dems.

I haven't suggested any kind of contest. You have stated that the Democrats have some kind of math deficiency on your own say-so as an authority on math skills. (Your expertise apparently doesn't extend to sociological research, but never mind.) I have helpfully suggested that I can assist you in remediating your own deficiencies in verbal communication, because I can, and have, demonstrated expertise in this field.

I have also said nothing about liberal Republicans (a nearly extinct species) or conservative Democrats. That was you, attempting to rephrase the argument. Without success, I might add.

"Let's start on the proper use, and inclusion, of definite and indefinite articles."

I will be the first to admit that I'm quite sloppy- but it's not just articles I omit- I have been fair in the sense that I drop verbs, nouns, and sometimes in my reckless haste the entire subject from a sentence.

Exactly! Sloppy grammar is an indicator of a mind disorganized by fatigue or strong emotion, or, if the sloppiness is consistent, of poor training. Bad grammar is also an impediment to effective communication, both in imparting and receiving information. You can't write your way out of a wet paper bag. You have demonstrated this. Wouldn't you like to improve?

"I'm sure Davin could parse your logic for you too, but I'm also sure he's quite busy."

Davin does seem to enjoy parsing logic.

Yes, and he's good at it, too. You could learn a few things from him.

"Quit making such stupid generalizations."

It might be helpful, if you keep saying that.

I will. It might be helpful if you listened. It's that communication thing again.

"God gave you one mouth and two ears. Take the hint."
~An old saying, frequently quoted by my family members, Democrats but still able to count~

Believe me when I tell you that I know there are much better communicators than you among people of your political pursuasion. The hazards of making stupid overgeneralized statements about a group, any group (the "Black People Have Rhythm" School of Analysis) are many. At least I have used a real, citable example -- you -- to support my overreach, and it still doesn't apply to "Republicans" or "conservatives" as a whole. You didn't even bother to use a real example. Take the lesson.

By the way, the comma in your last sentence, above, needs to be omitted. The "if" phrase is a dependent clause in its current position and doesn't need an appositional comma. If you had put the "if" phrase first, before the subject pronoun "it", the phrase would be in apposition and would need the separator. When in doubt, read it aloud. Your sentence doesn't need the breath mark, which is what a comma is in this case.