Bonged. (Offline)  

So predictable

Hello Buddy
I saw the question of yours on how widespread is acts of Buddhists or something similar. It sounded funny when someone had used the word "terrorists".

As that article suggested that particular act was wrong although that shrine was not in their own land. There is absolutely no prompting for violence in the Buddhist's text. What is actually said is even someone rips off your own body arm by arm and leg by leg, just remain calm and do not let your mind arouse any anger to that person. So, I really don't know why he had done that action. As an answer to your question, I see that religion as one of the most peaceful and there is no "widespread" of any bad acts.

I find the premise of that report flawed, in that it fails to account for the relativity of speaker and audience. I see nothing wrong with that title, but it could be represented as, "Consequences and Problems of Using Advanced Vocabulary Without Considering Necessity". It can then further be reduced to, "Why Using Big Words is Bad".

Bonged., to a 4-year-old or English learner, both the original and first revision titles would be linguistically overwhelming and unsuitable for purpose. I can only vouch for myself, but despite my extensive use of putatively obscure terms in university assignments, my standard of English is always commended. This is because my tutors and lecturers are of an equal linguistic standard and have no reason to perceive terms as being more intellectually significant because they are longer.

As you have admitted, the use of that phrase was required to convey unique meaning; i.e., it was not superfluous. Evidently, an article that challenges the superfluity of terms is impertinent to this situation.