# Contextual acronyms should be fine

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [October 8, 2023, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272 "2023-10-08T14:54:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 70

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2023, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/70 "2023-10-08T21:53:29Z")

</div>

I’m sorry you took umbrage. I wasn’t trying to assert that your thread was the work of a zealot.

What I meant was that within the two threads there was some zealotry on both sides. Such that the various folks here could be assured of finding a kindred spirit, or something close to what they were going to write here now somewhere in the totality of those two threads.

I have 16 contributions in your pit thread. Only one directly addresses the OP (post or poster):

> [@I Pit ILMVI for Complaining Incessantly About Acronyms](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-ilmvi-for-complaining-incessantly-about-acronyms/943142/258):
>
> [arrant pedantry] The OP of this Pit thread is just fine. It’s the guest of honor / topic of this Pit thread who seems to have a problem with reasonable. [/arrant pedantry] wink

I stand now behind my comment then.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272)._