Ok. I can accept that. I think your point is better made, however, if you answer the question being asked first, and then explain the folly of their ways. It allows them to put the question to rest and focus on your statements, otherwise they are distracted by the fact that their question has still not been answered. But I can't force you to do that, nor would it be fair for me to try.
As for the amount of details in pseudo-code, all I can say is to each his own, or as LW put it, TIMTOWTDI. It is the wrong place to critique a persons code, because it is not code. If they fail to check a syscall in actual code, then by all means have at them. But pseudo-code isn't code - which is what makes it useful.