In today’s Fly on the wall:

Good vs. bad jargon
Jamis’ response to a draft version of Buzzwords say all the wrong things resulted in some changes. The original version attacked jargon which Jamis defended in some cases: “I do think there are people that try to hide behind jargon, but jargon is also a valuable tool for reducing the bandwidth of communication. When Marcel and I talk about Ruby and programming, for instance, we can use terms that non-programmers wouldn’t necessarily ‘get’, but it allows us to talk about things at a higher level. For example, talking about “meta programming” and “accessors” and stuff.. It’s Jargon but it lets us share ideas more rapidly. Even Einstein spoke in jargon. He had to, in order to communicate his theories with other scientists. You can’t describe the nuances of relativity in baby talk. The problem is the abuse of jargon, not jargon itself.”

In response, the post specified buzzwords and the bad kind of jargon (in this definition, #5 “language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning.”) instead of the good kind (#1 “the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group.”).

O RLY? I don’t think they vetted it enough.