Reaper processes the FX chain from top to bottom, so I can start with an eq, then a delay and end with a reverb, all in one chain. Perhaps that's why sending a signal through different channels is not for me. I can get the same results with a method that is closer to older, more sequential methods.
I can learn a procedural programming language but not an object oriented programming language.
There have been several other really other good posts following the last post I made which offer some other reasons why the send method is considered best practice. But you are correct that you can run all inserts in series. Many people do this to keep it simple. But your statement above is not accurate and - depending on your plugin chain - can potentially lead to a muddy, unusable end product.
For example, it is typical that an electric guitar will have a delay mixed in series before a reverb. Think of how a guitarist normally routes his pedals before the amp. While there are numerous ways guitarists can setup their pedals (in parallel and/or in series), for the most part, the end product would be similar to your description above. So in this case, we can say that your statement is true. That said, there are other guitar mixing techniques where a delay would come after everything via a send to simulate two guitars rather than one.
But for something like vocals, it is very common that a vocal track will get sent to multiple delays of different types as well as multiple reverbs. This gives the vocals a fullness and width that cannot be achieved by processing everything in series. If processed in series, a delay would flow into a delay, then into another delay, then into reverb 1, then into reverb 2, etc. This would create mud. A very thick, yucky mud. Manny Diaz typically routes his vocals to four separate delays and uses one or two reverbs (depending on the type of production). You've heard this sound on countless #1 hits but it is impossible to reproduce by stacking the plugins in series (procedurally). Dave Pensado recently posted a video on his youtube channel demonstrating how he used 7 separate reverbs to achieve the end product of a recently mixed song. This would also be impossible to do in series.
With orchestral sections, it is very common for composers to combine the insert and send techniques where they will place an insert reverb on each section that only has early reflections (no tail). They will adjust parameters so the strings sound closer than the brass (for example). Then, all of the sections are bussed to at least one reverb where the parameters have been adjusted so that this reverb is "tail only." This makes the instruments sound like they are sitting in different places on stage, but are in the same room. Of course this is a technique to be used with dry samples (e.g. VSL) and wouldn't be used for something like Spitfire's Orchestral collection which already has the reverb "baked into the recording."
Other orchestral mixing techniques may send a dryly recorded orchestra to three or four separate reverbs to simulate "close", "mid", and "far" mic positions to reproduce a sound like you might achieve out-of-the-box from a Spitfire library.
Hope that clarifies. It certainly can be confusing to understand all of these nuances when starting out with mixing, but it is a technique that will benefit you greatly down the line. Great results can be achieved through both techniques, but they have distinctly different results. And as
@re-peat mentioned, changing verb settings and such is maybe one of the most straight-forward reasons to practice the send technique.
Also - the good thing about VI-Control is that it is a community that rallies around members trying to learn how to grow their techniques. So don't worry about having to shy away from techniques you don't know. Maybe it is isn't important for you now, but when the time comes, I'm sure members here will be happy to continue helping you learn this part of the craft.