Well, I dunno how fitting I am. I purposely keep my language
simple in a manner that I could explain something to a middle
school kid. I'm a bridge-person. I understand the heavy stuff
but never speak its language. Even in IT, I never used the
acronyms of the IT dept 'cause I was a bridge between IT and
business. I knew enough of both worlds but not enough to immerse
into either. So, I'm an oddball who speaks strangely. I rarely
speak of something without analogizing it to a common system.
Some people in the past have found it strange or even become
offended when I do that or consider me dumb and naive. I'm ok
with that. But let me know if I'm dumbing down or should build
up my lingo a bit. I *can*, I just choose not to most of the
time. I work with an assumption: Someone who understands
concepts at higher levels can handle imperfect analogizing to
lower levels. But sometimes my assumption is quite wrong.
Anyway, let me know 'cause this style you see ^ is my general
writing style and I'm ok with just observing. == Just to check
myself: "Readability Formula Grade Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
5.8 Gunning-Fog Score 8.7 Coleman-Liau Index 7.9 SMOG Index 6.4
Automated Readability Index 4.2 Average Grade Level 6.6" There.
A C student in the middle of 6th grade (11 yrs old) could read
what I wrote. A higher level 5th grader (10) could as well. I
still got it tongue emoticon
