I was not saying I agreed with the resultant behaviour of some responders. Nor that they had a point. Nor am I saying I am in favour of lowering communication complexity for the lowest common denominator since we already we have tabloids and celebrity magazines for that and I am able to therefore happily ignore all that stuff most of the time by just not buying any.
I'm also not saying I don't think people who fly off the handle whenever they see the letters "nigg" without regard to the context in which they were used should be all shipped to a secure island somewhere and left to fight it out in some kind of glorious desert arena, perhaps a domed one in which the crowd noise would sound like thunder and where if two enter, only one should leave. Nor am I saying those people should be joined with all due speed by marketing and advertising departments everywhere for the daily abuses they inflict upon the language in an attempt to shape the direction in which it evolves, or use it's beauty to obfuscate their lies ("healthy looking hair", indeed). I'm not saying that at all.
I'm just saying that the response was eminently predictable, and therefore avoidable, depending on the value one places on harmonious discourse vs one's freedom to use less common vocabulary, however correctly.
A phrase I have heard in relation to this subject is that failure to communicate is a failure of both parties. Failure to be understood is the failure only of the communicator, for failing to understand their audience.