But it's defined specifically in the second paragraph of the original article, so it makes sense to use the same terminology in discussion comments, right?

the people who keep this issue alive are people who take a delight in it, it being something that people like me think is really stupid. When I hear murder of crows or the term "terms of venery", I roll my eyes and throw up a little in my mouth.

It's not a big issue to me, but my impulse upon hearing about the topic is simply the opposite of the people who keep it alive. It's more twee than is an American, such as myself, using the term twee.

I would argue that the people (such as myself) who enjoy word-trivia like this are not "keeping the issue alive", because they don't believe there's an issue. If you don't want to use those words, then you are free to (not) do so. I enjoy knowing them, and I'll keep using them on the _extremely_ rare occasion that they're relevant.

It's the people who tell the others that they are wrong (whichever side of the debate they're on) who make it an issue.

I only recognised it by association with "venereal diseases", and even then I had to look up the definition, which showed I was wrong in this case.

I think there is something to be said for flowery language, but obviously there needs to be a balance struck between it and comprehensibility.

i am a little saddened by your downvotes after deciding to actually check the definition of 'venery', without making more assumptions on top of your assumptions, to find that the first definition is in fact 'sexual indulgence'. the second definition being 'hunting' thereby making your mistaken definition a very reasonable mistake.

Agreed! But I assert that people would still recognize "a murder of crows" as such, even if they don't have a name for it - just like I would expect someone to be able to recognize an equilateral triangle as such, even if they don't know the name for it.

Counterexample: GP comment, unless scubbo is not a person.

Gadzooks, you've found me out!