Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: acronyms Message-ID: <577@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 19:33:42 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.577 Posted: Tue Jan 15 19:33:42 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:36:39 EST References: <370@ihu1e.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 31 > > Wouldn't it be easier and faster to read and understand documents > of all sorts if acronyms were outlawed in the text of these documents. > With todays modernized computer facilities, documents could be typed > in with these acronyms in place, and then globally substituted for > before being printed out. I think that the acronyms are a violation of my civil rights! Maybe we can enact this law in a matter similar to the wonderful anti-porn ordinances that are sweeping the country. :-) > I've found that even if a glossary is included, sometimes the acronyms > are not defined correctly. If the acronyms are not defined correctly in the glossary why would the globally substituted repressentations be correct? > Maybe a common database could be accesible to all with standardized > definitions of all acronyms used by a company. > I agree acronyms are handy and easier to type and after an initial > familiarization with them, they become second nature. > But once they become familiar you aren't reading documents, you are > writing them. > > Who agrees? I certainly don't. I am worried enough about subtle abuses of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, much less explicitly outlawing text that is written in a particular manner... --Cliff