Classical Fourier analysts are kinda like anthropologists

Classical Fourier analysts are kinda like anthropologists: having
stumbled on a primitive tribe (scientists and engineers), they pat
themselves on the back for revealing the most bare, insufficient
rudiments of the tribe's language, after tens of thousands of pages of
nigh unintelligible research; meanwhile, the tribe is effortlessly
carrying on deep, profound conversation therein, and couldn't possibly
care less what the classical Fourier analysts have to say.

(Good rule of thumb: if noone cares about the overcomplicated
hypothesis of a theorem, NOR about the conclusion thereof, then gee,
maybe it's a bit too obscure and you should go back to the drawing
board)

(Another good rule of thumb: good mathematics should have the reader
reacting like this: "No way, that's amazing, I can't believe that.
(reads the proof) Well, damn, now I'm convinced. Wow!" It should
not have the reader reacting like this: "Ummm, who gives a flying
***? (reads the proof) Well, damn, some of these mathematicians
need to be euthanized.")

.