Fair enough but...
If you write using standard terminology then nobody has to "deduce" anything! That makes the exchange of information and views much easier and more accurate.
I do not have a strong background in the sciences, I have to confess, having studied liberal arts instead, so that a term such as -W loses me completely. ROD or VS, on the other hand, all of us who are airmen know about, since they are really self-explanatory terms when practicing good airmanship is not for the intellectual among us or so it seems to me. Not that being brainy is an automatic barrier to that, just that many very fine pilots just use common sense and dedication to the task at hand rather than a deep grounding in and necessary use of the higher sciences.
Many people cannot explain the physics of riding a bicycle yet a child can master that. "Gyroscopic stability," what might that mean? No idea, actually; the kid just leans the thing to go around a curve without falling over. You want to tell him he's moving in the Y axis there with a factor of -V?
"Winning through intimidation" is a very fine thing, if you even can pull that off before a serious, professional audience but it is anti-safety; you only succeed in getting someone else to just shut up, fearing being shown up as ignorant when they might just have that missing piece of the puzzle you need, as in that CRM exercise, building the "Green Obelisk."
To use obscure, non-intuitive, nonstandard terms such as "-W" or "Vz" just comes across to me as bluffing, dressing up a possibly weak presentation with some pointless "insider knowledge." That might just be my notion alone but there you are...
Yes, I think we are all basically interested in learning what went on to cause this crash. Meanwhile though, I would like to see less jumping to this or that hasty conclusion on little evidence, with all that dressed up with obscure terminology.