You’re still responding to an argument I wasn’t making.
My point has never been whether GQP exists, whether it can be looked up, or whether it has been used on Democratic Underground for years. My point has been that widespread use within a particular community does not automatically make a term mainstream or universally recognized.
You keep asserting that the term is widely known, but assertion is not evidence. Pointing out that Democratic Underground users, Democratic activists, or certain Democratic politicians have used it does not demonstrate that it is broadly recognized outside those circles. In fact, I searched both The New York Times and The Washington Post and found no occurrences of the term at all. That doesn’t prove the term is unknown, but it certainly undermines the claim that it is part of widespread mainstream discourse.
What I find interesting is that you keep turning a discussion about writing into a discussion about reader competence. Those are two different things.
Good writers routinely define acronyms, jargon, and specialized terminology, not because readers are incapable of looking things up, but because clear communication is generally considered a virtue. The ability of a reader to perform a search has never eliminated the writer’s responsibility to consider the audience.
The professor analogy is especially odd. No professor I ever had considered asking for clarification to be an academic failing. Quite the opposite. Questioning assumptions, identifying ambiguity, and examining language are fundamental academic skills.
What I find most curious, however, is the repeatedly condescending tone you’ve adopted throughout this exchange. I have criticized an argument and a writing choice. I have not questioned your intelligence, your education, your research habits, or your qualifications. In return, I have been told that I fail to do research, fail to understand, and would have failed academically.
That seems like a remarkably personal response to a simple disagreement about communication and writing style.
If your position is that terms like GQP do not need to be defined, then defend that position. But repeatedly shifting from the argument itself to judgments about the person making the argument does not strengthen your case. It simply suggests that criticism of an idea is being taken as criticism of the individual.
More broadly, I think this exchange illustrates one of the weaknesses of insular communities. A term becomes so familiar within the group that people begin to assume it is universally understood, and when someone points out otherwise, the response is often defensiveness rather than reflection.
You are free to think definitions are unnecessary. I am free to think they improve clarity. That is a disagreement about communication, not evidence that anyone has failed to do research.
= new reply since forum marked as read