Greetings Zac,
ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.
Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.
i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?
Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).
from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?
If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.
You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.
Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."