From: SHEILA WILSON (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:55:56 EDT
This is isn't just about one person - this is about all of us. Not everyone knows the acronyms and no one knows all the acronyms. As Jan said, I receive a significant number of emails each day just from this list. I cannot possibly ask for information for each email with cryptic acronyms. I am involved in this list so I can learn more about different subjects. If you (or anyone else) are unwilling to spell out acronyms, I will simply delete the ones I do not understand. This is my standard practice anyway. My hope is that some people will see the need and begin spelling out the words. Many have already started and, to those of you who have, THANK YOU very much! You guys are great!
Just a quick reminder, all I am asking for is a quick spelling of the acronym when the acronym is first used in the email.
Glenn Morton <email@example.com> wrote:
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 !
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]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.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]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 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
Sheila McGinty Wilson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:56:08 EDT