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