That's much better. I don't mind arbitrary new definitions for words, so long as they're explicit and consistently used. However, you might find others like TheOtherHobbes more receptive if you use wholly new phrases to avoid namespace collisions.

Being skeptical of arbitrary new definitions is a good defense against intentional conflation of two definitions. I find psychology papers are frequently guilty of using a very narrow, specific definition for a word in part of their research then switching to a very broad definition for their conclusions.