What style is this?

[rayheinrich]

Rowens' style of using "affect":

That's been pointed out to me before. But I keep doing it, where the word effect isn't strong enough for what I mean. I want the correct definitions of both nouns to come together. The argument that someone just can't make up their own rules with language doesn't phase me. Plus I think I saw Carl Jung use the word affect in the way I did, but that could have been because nobody cared what he was talking about anyway.

Jung was probably using it in the psychological sense of the word.
Making up your own definitions for words is usually an excellent way to be misunderstood,
but in the case of "affect" you needn't worry. Since zillions, including yourself,  already
misuse it, everybody understands the meaning and only a few etymology nazis
actually give a damn. The meanings of the two words are in the process of merging and
it won't be long until you are correct.

Assumptious and using that instead of who are two other words I have been commonly questioned about. Maybe that's a style of speech that's not allowed.

"Assumptious" is a real word. Someone who is assumptious makes more assumptions
than most people.  "That" is a safe word as it can be used with both people and objects.
"Who" should only be used with people.