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