I came THIS CLOSE to just cutting & pasting my comments from yesterday but ... well, if he didn't read my comments on it yesterday already..., this is the first time I've seen him use it and that contrasts with the problem that you pepper your posts with blogger talk like SCOTUS & VAWA & VAWA II.
And of course, this entire thread was a discussion about an actual court ruling that was cut & paste... not some vague and un-claims that "SCOTUS does this" or "VAWA says that".
EZ, I just have a problem with trying to persuade anyone new to the cause when we use language that is not in common public use, but rather is mostly common to extremist commentators. Like you hear half the room turn off even at the very use of the term "femi-nazi", EVEN if the term TOTALLY applies and everyone in the room would ordinarily agree with the concept you're discussing at the moment, you'll not get them to LISTEN if you use that term.
Acronyms too... tend to be specific to the website. And SCOTUS is simply not an acronym that's commonly used here.. not like stbx & etc.
I have ahd a longstanding discussion with Stoltz about the use of terminology like that when trying to engage in persuasive writing on places such as this board... because I think it's counterproductive to the cause (which I support) and could easily result in people being turned away who would otherwise have agreed with us.