But its a forum for discussing anal bleaching?
Wrong? The OP wasn’t kicking puppies. :smack:
There’s absolutely no hijack here. The topic of this thread is specifically why a the OP of a particular thread was lacking while others are not. This by necessity involves explaining how words are used.
I find it odd that so many posters were apparently unaware of these conversational expectations.I find it odd that I had to spell such a basic one out in my previous post. Of course it is expected that I will not have to use Google to understand what you say.
The fact that you didn’t know this is not something to be proud of. If anyone doesn’t get out enough, it would be those who don’t know the unwritten rules of communication.
The OP made a small mistake. It only became a big deal because some clueless people insisted it wasn’t one, and, as ignorance fighters, a lot of us felt the need to explain how it was a mistake. That some people continued stubborn with said ignorance is why it got heated. Stubborn ignorance tends to annoy people around here.
I’m not giving official board policy here, but just my personal opinion. In general, I think it’s better to use clear, simple language as much as possible if you want a good response and avoid hijacking.
However, in GQ people sometimes want responses to highly technical questions where use of technical terms is appropriate. In such circumstances the use of jargon is not a problem.
The other thread was in IMHO, and the poster was soliciting non-technical opinions on the situation. The question could easily have been asked without the use of jargon, with perhaps some clarification as to what the relationships might have been between the parties. This would have avoided the problem.
The answer I think is fairly simple: If you want an expert opinion on a technical question, especially in GQ, the use of jargon is OK (although if you can avoid it it’s better). If you want to throw your question out to the general public, and not just experts in the field, then it behooves you to ask it in the simplest and most straightforward way possible. Don’t assume that just because it’s second nature to you anyone outside your field knows its jargon.
I feel that people should take care in how they phrase their questions. If you ask your question in an unclear manner, you shouldn’t be surprised if it goes in an unexpected direction.
Jargon is fine in a thread and if you don’t know it, go look it up. Or, here’s a thought, decide “well, this thread is not for me” and leave it alone.
What Melchior has done to that other thread is akin to one jumping in a MPSIMS/IMHO thread “populated” by ex-military and demanding that they use words instead of acronyms like “non-com”, “CPACSUB*”, “Delta of the 89th*” and etc. There have been posts that have been completely opaque to me… but I never had the gall to demand that they translate the terms and say that they should never, ever use their jargon. Even if the thread is in IMHO. :rolleyes:
S/he is being rude and has somehow decided to become the arbitrator of not only how things are said, but of what topics are appropriate for the SDMB.
And there’s something else: Sometimes you use words, jargon, so that you can weed out people who don’t have much of worth to say. Here’s a hypothetical: if one doesn’t understand what a “C-Level” executive and a “direct report” is, then, perhaps, one isn’t qualified to answer. Maybe?
*Made up as far as I know.
However, it’s hardly a criminal offense to have to provide some clarification here or there and not the end of the world to ask for it.
In the thread in question the OP didn’t get upset or anything that there was confusion, so the vitriol seems awfully disproportionate to the scenario.
Is there an officially approved vocabulary list?
Perhaps we need to stick to Basic English?
Wouldn’t want to accidentally make someone learn a new vocabulary word. Learning is hard.
‘Scenario’? Oh no!
Do you know what scenario means?
Yes, scenario. It’s a shame the word confused you.
I’m just saying that if you want your question answered in a straightforward manner, it’s best to ask it in a straightforward manner.
In any case, much the “vitriol” in that thread isn’t posters complaining about the OP himself, but rather taking issue with each other (yourself included).
Moderator Note
And let’s not start directing snark at one another in this thread too. No warnings issued, but if this thread develops into further personal squabbles it will be closed.
Colibri
Moderator
Yes, I understood what you said.
What I’m saying is that’s fine to have that as a goal, but it’s also not tragic if words you may think are clear end up needing some clarification.
The vitriol directed at the OP is disproportionate, in my opinion to what he posted. I, and others who see it similarly, are frustrated by the contempt that some posters seems to have for the OP for using a term not familiar to everyone. If the OP had pitched a fit because someone didn’t get it, that’d be wrong. But by post 10, all terms had been clarified and yet he was still getting a hard time.
Eta: Sorry for the snipe. It’s hard not to reply in kind after awhile.
The vitriol didn’t happen because of the OP, but because people kept insisting things that you should know what “direct report” means or that it’s perfectly fine to use jargon for a general audience, and, if you didn’t understand the term, it was your fault for not looking it up.
There wasn’t an argument before that point. Stop insisting it was someone else’s fault when you started the vitriol. You are the ones who are so upset that you started a whole other thread about it. Your side is the one throwing around insults about people not getting out. You are the ones making this heated.
The OP made a mistake, someone told him about the mistake. The next step would be “Sorry, I didn’t mean to not be clear.” Then, the end. Instead, the next step was “how dare you accuse this guy of making a mistake!” That tends to start fights.
But that is *not *a technical forum. Is that unclear?
This is exactly right. The OP wants opinions from people who know what a C-Level and a direct report are. That’s why they figured so prominently in the thread title.
We’ve got threads that are thick with legalese, in which some people are tossing Latin terms around, for chrissakes. Shall we castigate them for making the thread inaccessible to those of us with more pedestrian vocabularies?
I started it? I started no other thread. You’re confusing me with someone else.
This is post 11 from that thread.
Up until then a few posters expressed confusion and a few posters answered. Here is the first negative sounding post.
I know damned well what scenario means, and that is not the correct usage.
It would help if you could quote just the part of a person’s post that you’re responding to. In this case, I have no idea what the antecedent is for the pronoun “that” in your reply.
What are you talking about? here is my post:
But that is not a technical forum. Is that unclear?
It was IMHO: My direct report is dating a C-level above me
Finally, BigT, not a single one of my posts castigated anyone for not understanding the term. I chimed in in trying to explain why direct report is a valid term, in general. I expressed frustration at a poster being, IMHO unnecessarily snarky. I clarified a position that I wasn’t advocating excluding anyone. That’s it.
Here are my posts in that thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=10802068
I hope that clarifies.