From: Jan de Koning (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:07:11 EDT
Sorry, George, but I was in a committee to research evolution and our
denomination about 15 years ago, and have since been interested in the
subject. However, every now and again a new acronym comes up, or an
acronym which was not used for a while is used again. Having a list next
to my computer of all the acronyms used over the past 15 years would be too
much. I receive at the moment between 70 and 125 e-mails a day and am
certainly not going to send e-mails to everyone I do not understand. As
someone who has been very much interested in science I feel snubbed. This
list used to be a joy to read, but the way newcomers are treated is
not. If some people are interested in discussing a certain subject again
and again, okay with me, but if they want all members of this list to read
it, they better make it understandable to everyone, newcomers, and older
Jan de Koning
At 07:51 PM 25/09/2003 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
>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.
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>Behalf Of SHEILA WILSON
>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 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
>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
>the subject. Expecting everyone who uses YEC to ! explain that it means
>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)
>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. &
>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 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:08:44 EDT