>This is a pretty long blog post covering really not very much.

Fine, it's too verbose for you. I like this pacing and level of verbosity for my own learning. I wrote it for people like me.

>At the very end you point to conditional and causative but say you haven't studied them, and no mention at all of passive, imperative, causative passive, or volitional.

I haven't studied them (as in "what they mean") but I've gone through all tables of "how they attach" as part of researching the article. Let's catalogue them:

- Conditional and casuative: Fully covered by the article's last section.

- Volitional: Same pattern. In article's notation, it's -[y]ou.

- Passive: Same pattern. In article's notation, it's -[r]areru.

- Causative passive: Same pattern. In article's notation, -[s]aserareru. (I guess there's a special case there for when it contracts.)

- Imperative: Genuinely two cases that IMO are easier to teach separately.

If something's actually wrong, please correct it! I think the article gives a genuinely good scaffolding. By the time you get to these advanced cases, you're comfortable enough with the base model to split them up.

>And how's that working out for you?

Can you stop with your condescending sneering? It's working out well for me.

>I find it very presumptive to propose to "teach" what you haven't really learnt.

I think the article is rigorous in the scope it tackles. If it's not, you would have pointed out the mistakes by now. I also think a beginner has full license to teach if they stay rigorous. It's just a market of approaches.