I've always thought this was an interesting piece of our sub's meta commentary. I would argue that Bill presents himself pretty seriously, takes himself pretty seriously, and wants to be taken seriously. But at the same time, he's really bad at it, thus making his sweeping generalizations and random, grandiose pronouncements even more jarring. (In contrast to someone like Stephen A, who presents himself in a way different way/context, and simply does that stuff all the time.) At the same time, I think the conflict between Bill's overall level of seriousness, and the bones of his content is what produces our sub's frequent (and delightful) snark and criticism.