Thanks very much for the comment, Paul.  I definitely like hearing what people don't like about what I'm doing (what they do like is nice too :) ), mostly because I'm writing to try and help people out.  I want to provide what they want to see and what can help them.

I've been thinking recently, especially with this article, that I'm giving too much detail, although some people (like JR. below) enjoy seeing exactly what's going on.  It's a difficult balancing act.

I never want to be one of those analysts who makes statements without backing up what he's saying with facts, although I definitely understand where you're coming from that too many can be confusing or maybe even unnecessary if you trust that I've done the backwork.

The thing with PITCHf/x is that there is so much that can be looked at and so many new doors to open that it's difficult to gauge exactly how much I detail I should go into.  Even with Corpas, there were things I left out simply because the article was running really long, but it still seems it ran long.  I'll definitely try to scale it back a little and figure out the best way to get my point across and be succinct.

I include a good number of graphs because I think graphs are easier for people to read than if I tried to express everything in words.  With the graphs, I sort of hope people glance at them (really study them only if they're interested) and sort of use them to follow along with the things I point out about them in my writing.  Again, though, some people might not like the graphs and might be overloaded by them all.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know where I'm coming from.  Thanks again for your comment.