Re: acronyms

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 16:08:38 EDT

  • Next message: Gough, Joshua: "RE: acronyms"

    Good idea. In fact I have saved George Murphy's
    definition so that I can respond by fowarding that
    post. Good work, George!

    Walt

    Iain Strachan wrote:

    > Might I suggest as a means to produced a better
    > tempered debate, that if you don't know what an
    > acronym means, that you reply **OFF-LIST** to
    > the original sender asking her/him to explain
    > what the acronyms mean. This means we don't get
    > into tedious discussions about whether to use
    > acronyms and whether to explain them, and the
    > rest of us don't have to put up with emails from
    > people asking about acronyms that many of us
    > know already. I for one don't think it's
    > reasonable that every time you use a TLA (Three
    > Letter Acronym) that you have to explain it in
    > brackets over the first use. Much better that
    > people who don't know them politely ask the
    > originator privately what they mean. That way
    > everyone gets up to speed reasonably
    > quickly. TTFN. (If you want an explanation of
    > this one, email me
    > privately). ------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Iain .G.D. Strachan There are 10 types of
    > people in the world ...
    > those who understand binary and those who
    > don't. --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: SHEILA WILSON
    > To: George Murphy ; Jan de Koning
    > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003
    > 9:22 PM
    > Subject: Re: acronyms
    > Being HN (hard-nosed) myself, I have
    > and will continue to FA (follow after)
    > Jan de Koning - deleting the
    > acronym-filled unintelligible emails.
    > Intentionally posting emails that are
    > unreadable because of OUAWE
    > (over-usage of acronyms without
    > explanation) is rude ATVL (at the
    > very least). Please reconsider. Not
    > everyone has been in this group for
    > years. This is my first exposure to
    > the terms YEC (young earth
    > creationism) vs OEC (old earth
    > creationism). I knew nothing about ID
    > (intelligent design) or IC (still
    > trying to remember that one). As a
    > Christian geologist, the information
    > has been extremely helpful . . . when
    > I understand the acronyms, OC (of
    > course). I haven't even tried the
    > robust whatever economic thing
    > because, sheesh, no one ever bothered
    > to explain that one and it was too
    > exhausting. I do have a strong desire
    > to understand the emails but, without
    > some explanation, and occasional
    > reminding I rarely understand no
    > matter how hard I try. Sheila
    >
    > George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > Jan de Koning wrote:
    > >
    > > Thank you, Sheila.
    > > Despite my previous
    > requests, we still get many
    > postings with acronyms
    > > unexplained. I have taken
    > the view that, if acronyms
    > are not explained,
    > > they are not intended for
    > me, and therefor they are
    > often deleted before
    > > reading the whole posting.
    > I warned in the past that I
    > would be forced to
    > > do so. In a book or an
    > article, even if they are
    > scientific, acronyms are
    > > explained. If it takes too
    > long to do so, it is
    > obviously not intended for
    > >
    > everyone....................
    >
    > I'm afraid I'm going to be
    > hard-nosed about this. A
    > listserv is not a scholarly
    > book or article but a quite
    > different medium. It is much
    > more conversational.
    > Moreover, one like the asa
    > list is intended for people
    > who have some familiarity
    > with
    > the subject. Expecting
    > everyone who uses YEC to !
    > explain that it means "Young
    > earth
    > creationism [or
    > creationist]" in every post
    > is like expecting a
    > physicist to explain at
    > the beginning of a paper
    > that c is the speed of
    > light. & scanning through a
    > post before
    > sending it, noting all the
    > acronyms I've used (some of
    > them unconsciously) & then
    > explaining each, destroys
    > their purpose, which is
    > abbreviation.
    >
    > Having said that, I think
    > it's reasonable to have a
    > resource that people can
    > easily consult to find
    > frequently used acronyms and
    > abbreviations. & having
    > looked it
    > over once, it shouldn't be
    > hard to remember or call up
    > relevant ones.
    >
    > & often you can figure out
    > acronymns or abbreviations
    > from context: In a
    > discussion of cosmology it
    > isn't hard to guess that BB
    > means big bang. & sometimes
    > you
    > can work around them - as I
    > often do with a German word
    > I don't know instead of
    > opening
    > the dictionary. Of course
    > you can miss things that
    > way, but you usually don't
    > have to get 100% of the
    > words in a message to
    > understand it.
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    >
    >
    > George L. Murphy
    > gmurphy@raex.com
    > http://web.raex.
    > om/~gmurphy/
    >
    > Sheila McGinty Wilson
    > sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
    >

    --
    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
    

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 16:09:24 EDT