Siva, I'll definitely check out H. Wonham's book--sounds valuable.

You know, I _do_ know exactly what knid of writing you're all talking
about when pointing to "unreadability" and the sometime lack of thoguht
behind some writers' usage of  highly "specialized" language.

Still, it's the issue of "critical thinking" which is important in both
writers and teachers, no matter what languge they use to express
themselves; there are plenty of good ol' liberal-humanists
(that's jargon for "non-jargon users") who are mediocre writers and
teachers.  Don't get me wrong, though--some of my best friends are liberal
humanists.

But, anyway, if it was my use of the word "homosocial" which set off the
jargon issue, (although I think the word is frankly &
patently readable), I'll consider that I might have said, instead,
something like "my paper is about guys hanging out with guys," or, "my
paper is about friendships between men."  I mean, golly, why mince words?
Why use one word when twelve or so will do?

Well, it's been fun, folks.

I hope the weather is as nice elsewhere as it is here.