Warning about people getting fancy ineventing new codewords and acronyms

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#1
So I see doggie isnt good enough anymore and we have people using k9 to be more confusing. I am about half an inch away from banning the use of ANY code words or acronyms WHATSOEVER. So keep it up, gentelemen, and you will be getting banned for using CBJ soon.

If something does not already exist in the "Codewords and Acronyms" thread, it is now OFF LIMITS. We already have too many, not "we need more". And yes I am closing that thread.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#3
Oh, and now that you guys have gotten me started, i am also banning to use of anything which has multiple meanings. So as of now, TS, ST and GFE ... AS WELL AS ANYTHING ELSE WITH MULTIPLE ,EANINGS is totally off the table.
 
#5
Slinky, I do not have any issues with how you run your board. However, may I please make s suggestion. I think if someone uses an acronym that is new or has different possible meanings they should put in parentheses next to the word what it stands for so that there is not any confusion. I do not know, maybe that might be too much to ask.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#6
Trigger, I wouldnt have a problem with that because it would be clear what they are saying. But it has gotten to the point where people are trying to show how much "on the inside" they are by using acronyms which are as hard to understand as possible. I get yelled at constantly on here from guys claiming they "just want to share information" and then actually sharing as little as possible.
 
#7
Trigger, I wouldnt have a problem with that because it would be clear what they are saying. But it has gotten to the point where people are trying to show how much "on the inside" they are by using acronyms which are as hard to understand as possible. I get yelled at constantly on here from guys claiming they "just want to share information" and then actually sharing as little as possible.
Slinky, I understand where you are coming from. Your job is difficult when things run smoothly, however, there are clowns that just do not care or are too lazy to try to learn the rules.. Peace out
 
#9
Slinky, I do not have any issues with how you run your board. However, may I please make s suggestion. I think if someone uses an acronym that is new or has different possible meanings they should put in parentheses next to the word what it stands for so that there is not any confusion. I do not know, maybe that might be too much to ask.
That would work for this hat page or maybe even that thread but then someone will use it elsewhere citing that they didn’t “invent” and we’re back hear again. I like the new rule and if you choose to use an abbreviation for something that will show up multiple times in your post, you should define it at the beginning of that post. Don’t just assume everyone should know what it is because it was defined 14 pages ago. Judging by how slinky feels about this I know I won’t be doing any abbreviating at all.
 
#10
That would work for this hat page or maybe even that thread but then someone will use it elsewhere citing that they didn’t “invent” and we’re back hear again. I like the new rule and if you choose to use an abbreviation for something that will show up multiple times in your post, you should define it at the beginning of that post. Don’t just assume everyone should know what it is because it was defined 14 pages ago. Judging by how slinky feels about this I know I won’t be doing any abbreviating at all.
BOLD is added by me.

This practice is standard in newspaper articles (NA), technical reports (TR), etc. Saves a lot of typing when referring to an NA or TR multiple times in a post.
However should only be used in posts where it is defined in beginning of the post or in replies to a post where it was defined in the post to which you are replying.

For example, if you mention an NA in post #99 that was defined in post #1, few will know what you are talking about.
 
Top