From: gordon brown (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 18:08:27 EDT
I know we can do better. Maybe we can spell the phrase out the first time
we use it in a message. However it shouldn't take a newcomer very long to
deduce from the context what we mean by YEC or ID. On the other hand, one
might still not be satisfied by seeing RFEP written out since that
terminology is not widely used.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, SHEILA WILSON wrote:
> Being an HN (you might remember - hard nose), you are right I could do that; however, what about all the other new members that join the list in a month? I am not alone. Several people have mentioned the problem and I have received several emails from people who agree with me.
> This is not a closed list. We must provide information to new members - that is the point of this list.
> Walter Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think that your point is a valid one. However, i think that it requires some work by you also. Once the acronyms are defined to you, then I think that you should keep a list by your computer and not expect everyone to repeatedly define each acronym. I think that you too will find that a bit annoying.
> And for Rush Limbaugh and his fans in Rio Linda:
> ASA="American Scientific Affiliation" ;-)
> SHEILA WILSON wrote: 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.!
> George Murphy <email@example.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.
> George L. Murphy
> Sheila McGinty Wilson
> Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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)
> Sheila McGinty Wilson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 18:08:19 EDT