> The GP was quite careful to speak from the standpoint of a reader from a general audience. A work of writing does in fact revolve around its audience.

So was I, otherwise I wouldn't have said:

> I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous.

Regardless,

> The definition of a word derives from the mutually understood definition of the word between the author and the reader.

Of course, and the word is defined in the article. So if the reader had actually read the article given, rather than just commenting on the title, then they wouldn't have been confused.