I think WE (What Exit) is an awesome mod and poster, but I agree that his approach was undeservedly hostile. Why not just say, “hey, it’s good form to spell out acronyms. I see a lot of them here (TPM, SHS, FOIA, MSM, BFF) that ought to be defined out of consideration for other posters. Can you please post the meanings, and refrain from using unexplained acronyms in the future?”
That kind of note I’d have no problem with, even though I didn’t even notice the acronyms as they were all so familiar to me I didn’t even process them as anything but words except for TPM, which was obvious from the link. But sure, different posters, different bases of acronym knowledge. I’m sure there are plenty of acronyms some would consider common that I don’t know.
Is it such a burden for people to strive for clarity? If you are smart enough to hold that database of acronyms in your head you are surely smart enough to recognise that blind spots might exist for others.
The smartest people I’ve ever met make a virtue out of explaining things clearly and without ambiguity.
Being against the unnecessary derailment of threads to discuss someone’s choice of acronym (or rather, decision to use an acronym, initialism, or abbreviation) at length hardly makes one a zealot IMHO. Indeed, I think the modnote being discussed here was hardly a derailment—indeed, WE made express his desire (after the note incited some in-thread commentary) that the thread should not be derailed to discuss the acronym issue further, which is perfectly consistent with my position.
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):
FWIW:
There is a Discourse plugin which can detect commonly used acronyms and convert
them to floating tool-tip type links, where you hover your cursor over the underlined
acronym and the phrase it represents appears.
For example … FOIA
That would be interesting, not sure if we have an option of getting Discourse plugins installed. I suspect not.
Anyone know anything more about this. I need to pass such to the Modloop and Ed who needs to bump it to a tech guy for the owners of the SDMB that would need to bump it to a Discourse Group that maintains this site. If it complicates updates, we probably can’t do it. But if it is trouble-free, maybe. At least I think that is the general routing of such.
I couldn’t find a “tongue-in-cheek” smilie, but since I didn’t use an acronym I thought I was in the clear. For future reference, this is a hyperbolic phrase that people use to attempt to lighten the mood. I believe I’ve seen Cecil use it on numerous occasions. You should not take it seriously.
No, it’s really not. As I’ve already mentioned, I too strive for clarity and to try to anticipate confusion at obscure terms. I’m merely suggesting that people not take offense when they encounter a new term, and that TLAs aren’t booby-trapped shibboleths filled with tar and feathers so that we can all point and laugh at the fool who didn’t know what TOOTBLAN means. (Which is the perfect example for this - so thank you BlankSlate. TOOTBLAN should never be accompanied by an explanation, because it’s such a wonderful delight for people to look up on their own - I would hate to be the person who clumsily explains it without proper due.)
The problem with TLAs is that there is so much overlap. In my universe, TPM means Trusted Platform Module. Obviously that’s not likely to be related to anything political, but a plugin isn’t likely to be smart enough to distinguish the two.
I’m fully in the anti-acronym boat. A post has one writer and many readers. Even if an acronym is slightly confusing, and even if it only takes minor effort to discern the meaning from the context, it is still better for everyone if the author just spelled them out.
Of course, as Chronos notes, just writing out the acronym doesn’t necessarily tell you anything. But I do think that the words Talking Points Memo rather than TPM is just slightly more efficient for readers to conclude that it’s a news commentary site as compared to something else.
Unfortunately for you, an unironic interpretation fits neatly with what you’ve already said (and you don’t even seem able to avoid that attitude in your explanation here) hence my need for clarification.
I’ll have a look into it - might even create my own discourse forum to play with !!
As @Dr.Strangelove says, there will be overlap. It maybe possible to have
different versions for different categories…
No-one is taking offence, people are pointing out that unexplained acronyms are generally unhelpful and an unwillingness to clarify reflects badly on the author.
You don’t seem bothered by that, that’s your choice.
The post itself already contained a smilie. If you can’t decipher at least some amount of sarcasm, then I do deeply deeply apologize.
But yes - you are taking offense. When you imply that the acronym users are doing it so they can laugh at the ignorants, you’re suggesting that what’s being done is offensive. And that’s silly.
I hope this isn’t too tangential, but I’m a bit surprised to read that apparently a few posters didn’t know who Sarah Huckabee Sanders is. (Or perhaps I am misinterpreting.) She is fairly well known as former President Trump’s press secretary (2017-19). At least, I thought she was.