From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:34:06 EDT
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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Jan de Koning
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:07 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of SHEILA WILSON
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:22 PM
To: George Murphy; Jan de Koning
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
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.
Sheila
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.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.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 10:34:14 EDT