I'd propose an example of good communication as Feynman as can be witnessed in the Feynman lectures.

Both Hitler and Feynman are charismatic and use many of the same rhetorical methods. The difference being Hitler is trying to manipulate public opinion to conquer the whole world and liquidate whole classes of people he dislikes, whereas Feynman is trying to convey actual truths about physics to those who are interested. — boethius

Yes I agree with this. Feynman is a great example who would not have immediately sprung to my mind.

While we have found common ground on this point perhaps you can then understand I was merely pointing out you might be better trying to communicate in the style of Feynman, who you agree is a good communicator, than say...Derrida.

This is the point I made in the first page of the Anarchism thread and was not substantively different to what I made in this thread so it was not 'hiding' and avoiding discussion as you accuse me of above. There was no need to mention you as it is the same point as what I made to you the first time, which you replied to at the time. If I didn't want you to see it I would not have written your name on a public thread on a very small forum which you would quite likely see sooner or later but I didn't see a problem writing it since I already wrote the same elsewhere, which you had already seen.

No matter, water under the bridge but you perhaps see my point better now, that it was not an attack. The Feynman analogy, which you yourself volunteered, is perfect.

↪boethius While we have found common ground on this point perhaps you can then understand I was merely pointing out you might be better trying to communicate in the style of Feynman, who you agree is a good communicator, than say...Derrida. — unimportant

The major difference is Feynman was paid for his work.

But beyond that critical aspect, there are also different levels to things.

There is a level of communication to lot's of people, whether propaganda or then this "good communication" to attempt to convey actual truths, and there is communication to arrive at those actual truths to begin with.

Not every Feynman "actual physics paper", much less most papers Feynman himself requires to develop his own understanding, are going to be masterworks of oration.

So, in order to have the level of Feynman lectures attempting to share what physics has learned with ordinary curious people, i.e. non-specialists, you must have first the level of Feynman the physics professor and researcher, of which most ordinary people would understand essentially nothing of what that's all about.

For our purposes here, my view is we are a community dedicated to that upper level of how knowledge is attained in the first place and how exactly do we know that it's knowledge. I am therefore mostly concerned with my statements here being actually true than convincing, and therefore also getting into all the complex aspects of the subjects we deal with.

Now, if I was employed by a political party to communicate with the masses, then I would attempt to create the Feynman lecture version of what I am confident is the truth.

It would be a whole new task.