The GQP opposition to the slush fund

[Betty Boom]

16. The question was about GQP, not QAnon

What’s striking is that you still haven’t addressed the actual argument.

My original comment was a simple request that you define “GQP.” I wasn’t asking what QAnon is. I already know what QAnon is. I wasn’t arguing that QAnon is obscure, nonexistent, or difficult to research.

Yet your response consists largely of proving that QAnon has a large online presence, which is a point I never disputed.

The question was whether “GQP” is a term that a writer can reasonably assume all readers will understand without definition. Those are entirely different issues.

The existence of search results does not transform community-specific jargon into mainstream language. If it did, every specialized term on the internet would qualify as common usage.

More importantly, a reader asking for clarification is not “haranguing” an author. It’s participating in a discussion. I asked a question about a writing choice. You responded by questioning the reader rather than defending the choice itself.

And that’s perhaps the most telling part of this exchange. What began as a discussion about audience awareness and clear writing ended with personal defensiveness and an invitation not to read your work.

If a writer’s response to a reader asking for clarification is “don’t read me,” that seems less like a defense of the writing and more like an admission that the discussion has moved from the merits of the argument to irritation that the question was asked at all.

In any event, I think we’ve probably reached the end of the conversation. I remained focused on the writing. You seem more interested in criticizing the reader.