> To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd. I think the point of removing jargon is to remove the "in" and "out" crowds as much as possible, a

> To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd. I think the point of removing jargon is to remove the "in" and "out" crowds as much as possible, at least for the mundane aspects of government. I think that some people will still try to make an "in" crowd in which they are a member by introducing jargon, but separating people into these groups doesn't benefit most, so let's try to fight that. Simple words is better as it is inclusive and also makes things understandable.