PsyGuy wrote:
> I find my position sufficient strong to withstand debate.
And your grammar, too.
PsyGuy wrote:
> If I was so
> disposed to creating barriers, why would I create a glossary and explain
> terms when asked.
> Introducing them on first use is not very helpful, its a minority of
> readers that will go back to read previous posts on common topics.
> Searching for "Glossary" takes less than a minute.
This is just asinine. First, you incorrectly read an element of intent into my comment. I never argued that you were "disposed to" creating barriers. I just argued that your writing (both your awful grammar and your eccentric use/invention of acronyms) creates barriers. In fact, my post concludes with the words "whether it's his intent or not." So, to borrow from your predictable tone: intent is irrelevant.
Second, the argument that you mitigate your inaccessible drivel by creating additional resources (e.g., "creat[ing] a glossary and explain[ing] terms when asked") doesn't carry the day. Sure, it's better than nothing. But you're asking people who are already (supposedly) relative non-experts in an area to do additional reading BEYOND your post...just to understand your post. And for what? It's one thing to say "part of your question involves tiers of schools, which have been addressed at length here. Click <here> for my bizarre treatise on tiers. To the rest of your question..." It's another to intentionally decrease the accessibility of a text through jargon and acronyms, and then ask the reader (or just expect/hope that they will search) to consult another of your own texts just to decipher the first one. Again, there's no need for it. It's saving you less time than you wind up spending answering replies from confused conversants, and it's wasting TONS of their time. Many are just going to give up and never fully comprehend the "wisdom" you're attempting to convey. Which brings me to...
PsyGuy wrote:
> Accessibility is irrelevant, only data matters, as is whether theyre
> pretentious or not, reasonable people can differ, and we appear to
> disagree.
Data is irrelevant if no one can understand it...at least in this context. We're basically discussing a help forum. You're providing advice/perspectives to people seeking information and/or guidance. You can have the best data in the world, but if you can't (or in this case, won't) communicate it, the results suffer. If your aim here is to actually help the people to whom you are replying, maybe you should take that into account. Hell, even the nascent health communication "field" has recognized that "mediocre" doctors are more effective than their more "elite" counterparts if they are better able to convey information to patience and secure patient compliance (e.g., convince patients to take their meds as prescribed). In that sense, the data is less relevant that strategic communication--which revolves around accessibility. And yes, there's "data" to back that up.
As for reasonable people differing as to whether your acronym obsession = pretentious, your opinion is irrelevant, as I don't view you as a reasonable person (not on this front, at least).
PsyGuy wrote:
> OTT is an acronym used by the TCL/TRA, its their term, you can find it
> here:
>
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/qualified-t ... status-qts> First use is under "Teachers trained or recognized in Scotland or
> Northern Ireland"
The fact that you have to explain further supports why you shouldn't be overusing acronyms.