� Any writer, indeed any editor, who hides behind words that the common man does not know, or even pronounce, disqualifies himself from our adulation.
Indeed, there are those on every sporting web site, the 24HCF, who are posers. Big words, long words, do not proved education and learning, they simply show that some hide behind words. �
Any writer or editor who's worth the salt on his omelet uses words that he knows. Not every reader is limited to "See Jack run" and "Run, Spot, run!"
One of the worst possible ways that a writer can insult his readers is to
"talk down" to 'em as if they're six-year-old cretins.
Who can write anything that's worth reading if he limits himself to such extreme simplicity as
"Birds fly" and
"Fish swim?"Some readers would have to look-up
adulation (above). Does that fact disqualify it?
Should a good gun writer or editor never use
obturation or
digressive?Any good writer or editor, on any subject from hop-scotch to neurosurgery, is familiar with words that some of his readers don't know.
A very good writer friend of mine once used � precisely, correctly, appropriately � a word that his boss's secretary said that he shouldn't use "because the boss doesn't know that word." My friend replied that if the boss didn't know that word, that wasn't the assistant's fault.
BTW, FWIW, a number of 24HCF posts have sent me to a dictionary, where I learned words that I hadn't known before. (In this very thread, in fact.) I welcome and embrace 'em eagerly. My vocabulary has grown significantly in the eleven years that I've been on the 'fire. Thanks, guys!
