Question

Paul King pking123-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg at public.gmane.org
Sun Feb 29 04:48:07 UTC 2004


> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Paul King wrote:
> 
> > I strongly disagree with your implication that 'net acronyms were ever
> > any part of a "subculture".
> 
> Hi Paul.  They are definitely part of a subculture:
> 
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/
> 
> The culture is alive and well and has leaked many terms to the
> mainstream in recent decades, much like other successful subcultures.

Robert, I wasn't denying that a subculture exists; I was disagreeing that 
acronyms are from anything resembling a subculture. Also, let's not get 
"jargon" mixed up with acronyms. I am sure that terminology has leaked out, but 
I have yet to hear anyone use an acronym like "IIRC" used in a normal 
conversation. Rather, they would begin the sentence with "If I recall correctly 
...". Nor has anyone told me to HAND. Rather, "Have a nice day" has been more 
the norm.

For example, I have been using newsgroups (called the USENET) almost since the 
beginning in the 80s. Acronyms, as far as I can tell, arose due to the fact 
that the primary basis of the USENET was text, and it saved both typing and 
reading. It arose out of necessity. Back then, there were only a few newsgroups 
distributed worldwide, and everybody had a FAQ (Frequently-asked questions) 
file, and a FAQ maintainer who was also some kind of an authority on the topic 
of the newsgroup. For those newsgroups without a maintainer, the USENET had 
(and still has) an internal, universally-distributed newsgroup called 
news.announce.newusers, which has general introductory material regarding 
newsgroup ettiqutte which can apply to the USENET as a whole. 

Us food scientists (like all scientists) also have arcane acronyms and our own 
jargon. But I don't see that as being "cultural" anymore than USENET acronyms 
are cultural. Maybe it's true that food scientists form a subculture like 
chemists and physicists, but like these it is quite limited.

But I agree that USENET and mailing lists are cultures in nearly every other 
sense. It even has unique rules of ettiquette, clearly laid-out. I have read 
USENET articles where people are baring their soul anonymously to the world, 
while others just like to verbally abuse others. Some people, like Robert 
McElwaine (google *that*) are legendary in their infamy. So is Serdar Argic. It 
has legends, rumors, fears, hopes, loves, emotions (through emoticons) and 
everything you could ask for in a true culture except for face-to-face human 
contact.

> 
> This subculture has even been the subject of formal cultural studies.
> 
> > Over-use of acronyms obscure messages. Unless someone wish to post a FAQ
> > to interpret their own jargon, they are essentialy writing messages to
> > themselves.
> 
> Not if the audience understands.  

You always need a FAQ. There will always be people in the audience who don't 
"get it", and re-hashing the rules each time for a newbie is tiresome. Newbies, 
and people who have better things to do in life than to run to an acronym 
website every time he sees an acronym he doesn't know about. An argument can be 
made for this mailing list needing one. However, I have noticed that people 
have been mostly pretty good about not letting the acronyms get out of hand, so 
maybe it isn't necessary.

> As a rule I avoid accronyms that I think
> it is unlikely my audience will understand (or I'll post a reference) but
[snip]

I hadn't said jargon were not useful. In fact I often advocate it, ans use it 
myself. But like you, I consider my audience and avoid acronyms unless I think 
people will "get it". Like you, I aim for clarity, and use acronyms if they are 
helpful in aiding that. Otherwise, what's the point?

Paul King

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml





More information about the Legacy mailing list