somewhere where the winged chariot of other posts don't constantly threaten to push it to the internet oblivion of "page 2"...
"
This, as you say, TM, is shorthand for specialists; signals to other specialists and insiders which, you imagine, can be (mis) understood [implicitly; by ‘outsiders’] as exclusionary, elitist, snobbish, show-offy, and rude. Why mis understood? If part of the intended audience is not within the magic circle of insiders, then can it not fairly be said that the use of that shorthand is indeed one or more of: exclusionary, elitist, snobbish, show-offy, or rude? Is it not tantamount to speaking to some guests at the dinner table in a language other than the language shared by all guests?
With acronyms and neologisms, then, as with cliff-jumping: just because we can does not mean that we should. There is much to be said for hastening slowly to take up new technologies, new fads, new fashions, new ‘language’. Perhaps those who share that view might be prepared to play some small part in guarding over language as it meanders along its path, to keep the muggers at bay: perhaps the art of polite communication is not lost, it is merely hidden behind the television set....
"
I especially would love to explore the above, including my emphasis added sentence.
Cheers,
TM