> His translation is incomplete. "Better" isn't a synonym for "more professionally and efficiently." "Better" could mean all kinds of things. But really, "to p

> His translation is incomplete. "Better" isn't a synonym for "more professionally and efficiently." "Better" could mean all kinds of things. But really, "to professionalize... and to introduce efficiencies" could mean all kinds of things as well. The big long fluffy phrase is so generic and crammed with platitudes that it's only marginally more specific than "run better." There's a whole lot of phrasing there that doesn't say anything. While you can argue that the big words used have semantic content, their combination nevertheless manages not to tell me anything. Look at some of the examples he gives of good writing. They're long and complicated, but they're saying something. Unlike the buzzword bingo game above, there isn't anything you can cut that wouldn't change the content. Simpler expression makes it easier to understand complicated content. I don't entirely disagree with everything you wrote. For example, I agree that field-specific jargon is useful and even necessary for concise communication. However, I felt that one point needed a comment, because it misses the core of his point: the words may mean something on their own, but they still don't add any meaning to the sentence that wasn't there already, and that's why they ought not to be there in the first place.