Re: acronyms

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 13:38:09 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: It happened!! (off line)"

    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

    Jan de Koning

    At 07:08 AM 25/09/2003 -0700, SHEILA WILSON wrote:
    >I do not believe this expectation is unreasonable in any way. Without
    >explanations, the writings are often meaningless. This is a science
    >forum, acronyms are expected and must be explained. If we were writing
    >for a journal, all acronyms would be thoroughly explained when first used.
    >Posting acronyms on a separate website would be helpful IF the website was
    >included with every email but that is unreasonable. I don't want to flip
    >back and forth between websites to figure out what someone is writing
    >about. I want one explanation for each acronym the first time it is used
    >in each email. It would add approximately 2.4 seconds for each email
    >(give or take).
    >George Murphy <> wrote:
    >SHEILA WILSON wrote:
    > >
    > > What is ICR????
    > >
    > > Please include descriptions with abbreviations at least once at the
    > BEGINNING of each email.
    >Sheila -
    >I understand your frustration but think it's unrealistic to expect each
    >who posts anything to list all acronyms. Terry, would it be possible to
    >have something
    >something available through the asa website that would list common
    >acronyms (YEC, TE,
    >MWI, &c)?
    >George L. Murphy
    >Sheila McGinty Wilson

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 14:38:30 EDT