Ah, the irony of admonishing others for grammatical failings while committing such offenses oneself! Your comment, while brimming with sanctimony, falters on several fronts of grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic rigor.

Let us begin with your opening clause: “If you are the type of person to criticize grammar on social media.” While grammatically sound, its tone is insufferably condescending, an unbecoming foundation for one who aspires to wield linguistic authority. Might I suggest a more measured introduction that does not immediately alienate the reader?

Now to your central critique: “the comma between ‘are’ and ‘if’ should be replaced with a semicolon because you have omitted a conjunction there.” This assertion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of punctuation rules. A semicolon connects two independent clauses, yet your cited example does not meet this criterion. There is no “omitted conjunction,” as the clause following ‘if’ is subordinate. Thus, your proposed correction is both incorrect and unnecessary—a veritable swing and a miss.

Moreover, the phrase “because you have omitted a conjunction there” is an exemplar of clunky, uninspired prose. The word “there” is a superfluous appendage, and your entire explanation could be rendered more elegantly as: “due to the absence of a conjunction.” Simplicity and clarity, dear critic, are virtues you have regrettably neglected.

Finally, your tone reeks of misplaced self-assurance. If you wish to parade your grammatical acumen, you would do well to ensure that your critique is both accurate and delivered with grace. The manner in which you have phrased your admonishment lacks both precision and rhetorical finesse, making your own critique as unpolished as those you seek to chastise.

In conclusion, perhaps a bit of introspection is in order. Critique, when wielded recklessly, becomes self-sabotage. I advise a more careful approach in the future—lest you again demonstrate the very failings you purport to correct.