Quote:
In that sense, if you want another person to understand you, more than determining a "true" meaning of a word, I think that it's best to adapt to the person you want to communicate with. Similarly, if you want to understand another person, if it's possible, regardless of the words being used, try to understand the thought they are really trying to portray.
This is not an either-or or both-and, really. It's a yes-no. The first method is objectively good and works with all except with the most obtuse. The second method works only on a hit-and-miss basis, and, in a forum, has the added danger that the eager-to-please listener is seen as seeking to be holier-than-thou ("I'm patient enough to try to understand, you're not").
If one person wants to communicate with 10,000 and he lazily or unimaginatively uses his own unidiomatic terms, technical jargon, waffle or gibbersih, he is not going to be very successful if he he expects many of them to make an effort to work out what he is saying. One initial effort by one person is bound to be more efficient than 10,000 later efforts. Further, if he adapts to his target audience, he can be reasonably sure they have understood him as well as listened to him.
The touchy-feely second method is suitable only in a few cases. One is dealing with people who may not be as linguistically competent as we'd nornally expect, say young children. I don't think such people would welcome being patronised in public in a forum, so it's not appropriate here. Another situation may be where you want to be a guru and try to attract a following by saying mystical things. You may have some success - some people do indeed answer spam, and there are always those who have a special glow because they think they've divined the true meaning. But not only is that not appropriate here, I don't have a sense that many people here are spam openers (indeed, there are already pro-active readers who eliminate certain threads or block certain posters).
The halfway point of defining your terms and then using them and expecting others to use them is also inefficient. How many are going look up and try to remmeber the definitions beyond the initial launch? It can work in a book, just, where you can (but only if you choose) have a fixed point of reference on your shelf. But never in a voltaile thing like a forum. Also, psychologically, it is also likely to antogonise many. It's all very well for Euclid to define his axioms first, but that approach is irrelevant to much of life, and to try to impose it risks alienation.
It's much, much wiser just to speak the common language, and to go with the flow in coping with its inefficiencies. You get there in the end. As Takagawa noted, that is good for a go style as well: be like water, going round obstacles or being patient till you can.