RE: acronyms

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:34:06 EDT

  • Next message: Steve Petermann: "Re: RFEP & ID"

    The principle I think ought to be followed is this: Which takes the most
    work? To make everyone else type the same thing over and over again and
    again or for one person to simply ask a question. If one isn't willing to go
    to the work of simply sending one email or isn't curious enough about the
    topic to do that, then why should they suggest everyone else go to
    cumulatively huge amounts of work for the occasional time they don't
    understand an acronym? While I agree that acronyms appear which I don't
    understand, I would think it highly presumputuous for me to expect everyone
    else to go to that cumulatively huge effort to satisfy me when I am
    unwilling to do a simply amount of work and send an email. This phenomenon
    is seen with YECs who expect us non-yecs to look up articles for them when
    they are unwilling to go to the library and do it themselves. In theory, one
    should take responsibility for oneself and for learning what he is
    interesting in, and not expect everyone else to feed them pablum.

     -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Jan de Koning
    Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:07 AM
    Subject: RE: acronyms

      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 members both.
      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.
          -----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
    > 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 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
          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
          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 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:34:14 EDT