1. "lost your position" wasn't intended to be specifically non-technical. It was specifically because I didn't know/remember what happened. I didn't want to say fired because I didn't know if that was the case. I didn't say retired because I didn't know if that was the case. What I knew was that he was an editor, and then after a certain date, was no longer an editor. Hence he lost his position. That was my thought process. I suppose I could have written something precise like, "had your employment terminated by the agreement or action of one or both parties" but that seems needlessly formal and hard to read.
2. The conversation about abnormal wasn't about a "technical" meaning. There is no "technical" meaning of that term. Its meaning implies a value judgment. I mean, that's true of a lot of words. But this poster was contending that his use of the word "abnormal" was "objective" and the only reason liberal squishes were objecting was that we're too afraid of being mean. The truth, of course, is that there is nothing factual or objective about claiming something to be abnormal. The concept requires normality, which is a privileging of certain characteristics over other competing characteristics. By definition, that is a judgment, not a fact.
If there is any lingering doubt on this point, try an exercise. Think of something you consider "abnormal." In the case of this thread, it was suggested that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality "abnormal." But it's also possible for both to be normal. So, how do you argue in favor of one of those qualities (e.g. hetero) as normal as opposed to both being normal? There's no way to do it except by bringing in some concept of what the world should be. None. Try it. Argue that a one-normal descriptor is superior in principle to the two-normal one.
This is not a question of technical meaning. It's a question of a) a basic, fundamental aspect of the meaning of the word and b) the nature of the concept of normality.
