Language, from presentation to the way that presentation is received by an audience, as delivered from a platform by specific types of presentor's is in question. Linguistics and methods of articulation in relation to both audience and platforms is a study I had never considered. Subject matter coupled with rhetoric utilized to make a point stick, an effort to enable greater resonance, applied for specific purposes, and in this particular case, as it pertains to comprehension levels and effort in understanding. Language arts and linguistics, expression and effect, comprehension and intent all variables of the exercise itself, to better understand the art or the science of language, articulation, and reception. The differences of reaction to different types of presentations and rhetoric as it applies to the effectiveness of, which includes the differences between presentor or types of people making the presentations, an evident limiting reality for both audience and some people on the platform Is there a specific reason for the potential differences between types and how the material is perceived by other's? I'm inquiring about insight, not so much about personal truths in this regard. A study of why some are more effective than others, respectively. The difference between how a presentation is perceived based on who is giving the presentation and the effect it has is what's in question. Why the difference? What about people or types of people determine whether one view held by one type is accepted and another view not, even if the one accepted seems contrary to personal introspection and understanding? A college professor vs a highschool dropout for example. Or is this even part of linguistics, the scientific study of language? Obvious reasons transparent enough to understand that it's still a somewhat personal study and about the human psyche.