From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:45:33 -0500, William Vetter   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.composition:   
      
   > Brian M. Scott pretended :   
      
   >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 06:23:39 -0500, William Vetter   
   >>  wrote in   
   >>  in   
   >> rec.arts.sf.composition:   
      
   >> [...]   
      
   >>> For a few years, I was taking pictures for a guy at NASA   
   >>> Glenn, and he sent me a manuscript with my name on the   
   >>> masthead for to comment/correct.  And this guy was   
   >>> otherwise very agreeable to work with, but it took me   
   >>> hours to figure out what he was even talking about when I   
   >>> read his manuscripts.  It was full of lines like   
      
   >>> "The substrate was reticulated."   
      
   >> Not a very good example:  is a bog standard   
   >> technical term in several fields, and I’ve been familiar   
   >> with  since before I hit my teens.  This is   
   >> clear technical language.   
      
   > Tell me what they would mean in solid state science, if   
   > you know so much about clear technical language.   
      
   Exactly what they say: the substrate (base) on which   
   something was deposited or grown was reticulated (ruled in   
   some kind of grid-like pattern).  Someone in the field might   
   well get even more out of it -- almost certainly if given   
   the full context.   
      
   It’s entirely possible to engage in obscurantism when   
   writing in a technical field, but this is not an example.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)