You're right, there's multiple related points to be made here. So, let me try to clarify the issue a bit.

If I write a post with specific examples, people will get too hung up on the examples and the main point is lost.
if I don't post examples, people will comment that I am not specific enough.
If I state very clearly and succinctly what I mean, there's the risk that I come across as arrogant.
If I quantify everything with disclaimers, the post becomes less readable and people won't know what I think.
If I don't anticipate every possible counter-argument, people will assume I haven't thought of those arguments.
If I do anticipate and counter every counter-argument, the post becomes less readable again.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. It really is hard, as you say. I originally included in the text that I was thinking about the meta-ethics sequence specifically: I feel that by attempting to include every possible concern, every possible argument and counter-argument, the sequence became way too long and unreadable. At no point does Yudkowsky clearly and succinctly state what his position is. As a result, I think the point of the sequence was lost on people.

Yet there's a reason for this. Eliezer isn't stupid: I think he wrote the sequence that way precisely because he feared that if he did state clearly what he meant right of the bat, people would instantly reject it based on trivial arguments. However, I think that the solution is for the reader-base to appreciate frankness and terseness more, and demand argumentation and qualification less. Not to demand that people like Yudkowsky write perfect posts that cannot possibly be misinterpreted and cover everything without being too long.