RE: acronyms

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 20:51:45 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: YEC lecture notes. Part 3 (last of 3)"

    I agree with George that it is crazy to have to define every term every
    time. I would suggest what I have done. If you see an acronym which you
    don't understand, privately email the guy or gal who used it and ask. That
    is simple. But to expect those of us who have dealt in creation evolution
    for years and years to explain AIG, ICR etc is simply expecting something
    that won't happen.

    I always have trouble remembering RFEP but if I am curious enough to get the
    exact words I will ask Howard who continually changes his acronyms (shame on
    you Howard, stasis is best--repeat that 20 times).

     It is also a bit over the top for someone joining another list to expect
    everyone to do exactly what they want done when everyone is happy with what
    is going on.

    For Jan, you also could email someone and ask the definition. That really
    isn't too hard.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: []On
      Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:22 PM
      To: George Murphy; Jan de Koning
      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

      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

      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 <> 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
    > they are not intended for me, and therefor they are often deleted
    > reading the whole posting. I warned in the past that I would be forced
    > do so. In a book or an article, even if they are scientific, acronyms
    > explained. If it takes too long to do so, it is obviously not intended
    > everyone....................
        I'm afraid I'm going to be hard-nosed about this. A listserv is not a
        book or article but a quite different medium. It is much more
        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
        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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 20:52:14 EDT