Seeker,
If there is an anti-intellectual bias to this board, why isn't it also directed at other intelligent posters here? Why is it that only Dunscott elicits this response? I think "Hmmmm" hit the nail right on the head.
It isn't just big words -- it's this continual need to spout obscure references to -isms no one has heard of or cares about, or what some philosopher wrote that is not even remotedly connected to everyday human experience.
This is not a philosophy bboard.. it is about JW and ex-JW issues. The participants want to discuss them without having to wade thru a lot of so called intellectual drivel.. Also I think people get annoyed because they sometimes perceive Dunscott is using impenetrable (thanks MD) dialogue to avoid answering tough questions.
Here's an example. I also am a computer professional. When my mom asks me how to send an email attachment, I am not going to start telling her how to write an email system in Common Lisp and explaining the internals of SMTP and TCP/IP to her.. Yet this is exactly how Dunscott seems to approach this forum. I feel sorry for Duns' mom if she ever comes to him with a computer question.
One last thing, while I agree that certain words my express certain ideas/concepts more precisely (eg interlocutor vs. poster), I feel it is more important to communicate effectively than to communicate precisely.. When you get that precise you are likely to lose your audience (case in point: this board), whereas by using more common, less precise terminology most readers will still get the point and will actually stick around to read the message.