Sorry for the perceived tone, it wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything immoral (although I think you aren't being much attentive to readers, but that is hardly immoral). I was mainly trying to say that violating the local aesthetic code against the disagreement of everybody who cares to voice their opinion is instrumentally bad. Even if you think that your style makes communication easier, the disagreement of others is a strong piece of evidence that it doesn't, at least with the LW audience.

As aesthetic preferences are usually difficult to explain or even describe, I probably cannot provide a deep reason why your style is unwelcome. Few particular things I find annoying:

1. I like stylistic unity, so when everything on the site is one style and one post is another style (yet all the surroundings are original), it is the one post which I perceive odd by default
2. too many fonts; you have a normal LW headline, then a link in some serifed font, then one paragraph in the standard LW sans-serif font, then the rest of the article in another sans-serif font (or perhaps the same but different size)
3. the section headlines are larger than the main headline (aaargh!)
4. blank line missing between sections 1 and 2, other sections are separated by blank lines
5. the grey background, which is only slightly different from the standard white background and (aargh again) surprisingly missing in the first paragraph and at some (but not all) blank lines; the most annoying thing is that it forms visual boxes which unite the body of a section with the headline of the following section
6. the red emphasis; on first reading I tend to interpret red not as emphasis, but rather as a text marked for further revision or deletion in a draft

Originally I thought that these "features" accidentally arose when you had copied the text from elsewhere. Now when you are defending the typography, I am curious whether you really have a reason for them all, especially no. 5.