In most such cases it is a clear and very human communication of anger and personal frustration. It would seem that you are being extremely judgemental and highly restrictive on what communication should be and saying clearly that only your definition is permissabel. So intolerance!
Stuart, I understand that judge me as being judgmental when I cannot understand what the writer means with little known acronyms, so be it! You may be right, but that does not make the frustrating failure to communicate any more palatable. I enjoy the time I spend reading the forum comments for enlightenment and for the variety of opinion. Most of the contributors are educated and well-versed in history and political knowledge, far more so than am I. That is what I appreciate. But such knowledge and opinion is woefully garbled with the use of little known or totally unknown acronyms. Such is the sign of a lazy writer, or a writer who is not really concerned about whether or not his or her reader understands the ideas he or she is making, instead the writer can appear to be writing with little regard for the process of two-way communication. And that is certainly my opinion, in my judgement. I am not against using commonly known acronyms; I use them myself. When in doubt, I write the phrase, name, or title out and then in parenthesis the acronym such as Roane County Department of Education (RCDE). Having done that, the reader will now know what I mean throughout the rest of the comment when I use only RCDE.
Then I apologise as i think we all assume a similar level of knowledge when communicating here. Might i suggest that next time you ask what the letters mean quite simply rather than accuse the offending writer of "bad comm" . People here will respond gladly and with understanding.
That is exactly what I always do. I ask. My original comment was an answer to Susan, who asked, "Who is TFG?" Apparently my answer to her question led to a plethora of displeasure which prompted me to respond in kind.
Honestly - there are so very many other "acronyms" that COULD be used - this one is a fairly bland one. Seems more like nit picking than intolerance and perhaps stirring the pot?
I have to agree with Andrea. I'm a technical writer. The rule we use is, spell out the phrase the first time, with the acronym in parens. Then use the acronym in the rest of the text. Like this: " I can't write the name of The Former Guy (TFG) without a shudder of revulsion."
In tech especially, the blizzard of acronyms would otherwise be a barrier to comprehension.
I also do a lot of medical writing. I loath acronyms when they're not in common parlance, like DNA and MPG. It's easy enough to write out the former guy. (That took me less than a second.) As I said above, acronyms do to prose what a dead cow does to the stream it's lying in.
I have no problem understanding and using standard acronyms that are common, that I can feel comfortable that everyone knows. To use made up acronyms that are not commonly known is a failure to communicate.
It was a communal decision to shift to the Former Guy so we could avoid having the T name appear over an over. At the time there was a celebration that finally we'd found an innocuous way to refer to TFG without feeling drug through the morass. But of course, not everyone caught that shift, and to new folks it would appear to be just jargon. But I would suggest that when that happens, as it will, simply ask. Much more effective than self-righteous lecturing. (BTW, Elizabeth, by default I am a technical/science writer, too. This forum isn't the same thing. This is a bunch of folks doing our best to understand WTF (nope, not going to write that out) is going on. We've gotten to know each other as individuals: this is more than a forum because of that, and one reason new folks are able to join right in. So it's normal that we'd invent terms that facilitate conversation. Sorry we don't meet your expectations. Personally, the invention of TFG was a great relief for me. I also like that I don't have to look at TFG's face or listen to his voice.
Is it not appropriate to address subscribers who were on it on this agreement? We also participate in the forum. If you are too busy to engage in the issue, pass it by.
Well said, Annie. Still, there are times when spelling out is good: do you want me to write DP, or Der Pu$$enGropenFuhrer? It's so much more visceral. I don't mind that extra effort!
TPJ, my response would more likely to just skip over it. I know you well enough to understand your perspective without worrying about how you express it. Besides, your occasional forays over the top make me laugh more often than not, and laughter is something I both need and value. If you need to spell something out in order to fully express your feelings, go for it!
Thinking I could have a lot of fun with this, spelling things out. English is so impoverished because of our tendency to abbreviate. But then, Aussie-isms are penetrating American English to the point we've adopted their style of abbreviating. Drove me batty at first, but found I soon picked up on it, and even use it occasionally. Then there is Spanglish, which I discovered I love. That's working its way into standard English as well. English is a remarkably flexible language, and from time of the Normans has been a creole-language. Still evolving. Still... looking forward to time when "Der Pu$$enGropenFuhrer" would just get you a baffled look!
It has nothing to do with tolerance; it is all the new and made-up acronyms that make no sense; A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!
In most such cases it is a clear and very human communication of anger and personal frustration. It would seem that you are being extremely judgemental and highly restrictive on what communication should be and saying clearly that only your definition is permissabel. So intolerance!
Stuart, I understand that judge me as being judgmental when I cannot understand what the writer means with little known acronyms, so be it! You may be right, but that does not make the frustrating failure to communicate any more palatable. I enjoy the time I spend reading the forum comments for enlightenment and for the variety of opinion. Most of the contributors are educated and well-versed in history and political knowledge, far more so than am I. That is what I appreciate. But such knowledge and opinion is woefully garbled with the use of little known or totally unknown acronyms. Such is the sign of a lazy writer, or a writer who is not really concerned about whether or not his or her reader understands the ideas he or she is making, instead the writer can appear to be writing with little regard for the process of two-way communication. And that is certainly my opinion, in my judgement. I am not against using commonly known acronyms; I use them myself. When in doubt, I write the phrase, name, or title out and then in parenthesis the acronym such as Roane County Department of Education (RCDE). Having done that, the reader will now know what I mean throughout the rest of the comment when I use only RCDE.
Then I apologise as i think we all assume a similar level of knowledge when communicating here. Might i suggest that next time you ask what the letters mean quite simply rather than accuse the offending writer of "bad comm" . People here will respond gladly and with understanding.
That is exactly what I always do. I ask. My original comment was an answer to Susan, who asked, "Who is TFG?" Apparently my answer to her question led to a plethora of displeasure which prompted me to respond in kind.
Well, then, the fault is not yours...but the anger in your response was clearly expressed. Bravo!
Honestly - there are so very many other "acronyms" that COULD be used - this one is a fairly bland one. Seems more like nit picking than intolerance and perhaps stirring the pot?
I have to agree with Andrea. I'm a technical writer. The rule we use is, spell out the phrase the first time, with the acronym in parens. Then use the acronym in the rest of the text. Like this: " I can't write the name of The Former Guy (TFG) without a shudder of revulsion."
In tech especially, the blizzard of acronyms would otherwise be a barrier to comprehension.
I also do a lot of medical writing. I loath acronyms when they're not in common parlance, like DNA and MPG. It's easy enough to write out the former guy. (That took me less than a second.) As I said above, acronyms do to prose what a dead cow does to the stream it's lying in.
I have no problem understanding and using standard acronyms that are common, that I can feel comfortable that everyone knows. To use made up acronyms that are not commonly known is a failure to communicate.
It was a communal decision to shift to the Former Guy so we could avoid having the T name appear over an over. At the time there was a celebration that finally we'd found an innocuous way to refer to TFG without feeling drug through the morass. But of course, not everyone caught that shift, and to new folks it would appear to be just jargon. But I would suggest that when that happens, as it will, simply ask. Much more effective than self-righteous lecturing. (BTW, Elizabeth, by default I am a technical/science writer, too. This forum isn't the same thing. This is a bunch of folks doing our best to understand WTF (nope, not going to write that out) is going on. We've gotten to know each other as individuals: this is more than a forum because of that, and one reason new folks are able to join right in. So it's normal that we'd invent terms that facilitate conversation. Sorry we don't meet your expectations. Personally, the invention of TFG was a great relief for me. I also like that I don't have to look at TFG's face or listen to his voice.
Communal decision, I didn't know about it and neither did plenty of others.
No vote was taken. Many people liked it & adopted it after it was discussed. I feel like we have so much more important things to worry about.
Is it not appropriate to address subscribers who were on it on this agreement? We also participate in the forum. If you are too busy to engage in the issue, pass it by.
Thank you! for your clear communication. I agree. Tolerance is a great word for today.
Well said, Annie. Still, there are times when spelling out is good: do you want me to write DP, or Der Pu$$enGropenFuhrer? It's so much more visceral. I don't mind that extra effort!
Thanks for going the extra mile, TPJ!
Thanks Adker. It really is a labor of love.
TPJ, my response would more likely to just skip over it. I know you well enough to understand your perspective without worrying about how you express it. Besides, your occasional forays over the top make me laugh more often than not, and laughter is something I both need and value. If you need to spell something out in order to fully express your feelings, go for it!
Thinking I could have a lot of fun with this, spelling things out. English is so impoverished because of our tendency to abbreviate. But then, Aussie-isms are penetrating American English to the point we've adopted their style of abbreviating. Drove me batty at first, but found I soon picked up on it, and even use it occasionally. Then there is Spanglish, which I discovered I love. That's working its way into standard English as well. English is a remarkably flexible language, and from time of the Normans has been a creole-language. Still evolving. Still... looking forward to time when "Der Pu$$enGropenFuhrer" would just get you a baffled look!
Every group has their shorthand TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms). Until it becomes common I hope people will write it out the first time they use it.
We're going to need a glossary to keep up.
We all carry glossaries in our heads, and should augment them regularly.
It's a form of community identification. Either you know, or you don't know. A.k.a. Tribalism, for what it's worth.