That’s a tough one, rocksolid – at least the part about the apostrophe in “Operations.” I don’t know why “Customer Operations Projects” wouldn’t work just fine.
I have no idea why your former coworkers and supervisors went with COPs – that seems strange and illogical to me. You undercut – persuasively – your one attempt to explain this usage, by brilliant analogy to another common shorthand pattern and I just can’t think of anything else. C.H.i.P.s? Dunno.
[QUOTE=Blunt]
Now, this is probably a dumb question, but how should I type the plural of “PO”? I’ve seen a lot of people use “PO’s”, but of course the 's should really represent ownership and not plural. I’ve also seen people use “POS”, but that looks like something completely different to me, and “POs” looks strange to me as well. So, is there any right way to spell this?
[/QUOTE]
What I’ve usually done is type “PO#s”. Or “PO Numbers”. Yes, you have more keystrokes, but it’s easy to read for most.
[QUOTE=Scarlett67]
And Good Lord! Some of you people need to buy new reference books once in a while! CMS13? MW7? Those are in the 15th and 11th editions these days! Get with the program! :dubious: 
(says the proud owner of a first edition of Words Into Type, acquired used with scads of clippings and handwritten notations within, and a third edition of Webster’s Collegiate, and who by nature of her profession has to buy new editions all the time and realizes that not everyone feels that need)
[/QUOTE]
You do realize, of course, that my possession of more than one edition of the work in question allowed me to provide documentary evidence of a change in practice. right?
I enjoy having up-to-date editions around, but I am always on the lookout for older editions that demonstrate what was actually acceptable in previous years. No one can have too many dictionaries or maps with increasingly older copyrights.
[QUOTE=Scarlett67]
And Good Lord! Some of you people need to buy new reference books once in a while! CMS13? MW7? Those are in the 15th and 11th editions these days! Get with the program! :dubious: (says the proud owner of a first edition of Words Into Type, acquired used with scads of clippings and handwritten notations within, and a third edition of Webster’s Collegiate, and who by nature of her profession has to buy new editions all the time and realizes that not everyone feels that need)
[/QUOTE]
Heck, I’m a writer, not an editor. It’s the editor who has to have the up-to-date edition in order to correct my mistakes. 
However, I am starting a couple of major projects so I think I do need to update soon. I also need to find a style manual for Spanish.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You do realize, of course, that my possession of more than one edition of the work in question allowed me to provide documentary evidence of a change in practice. right?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course. I guess my attempt to represent my comment as tongue-in-cheek by including :dubious: and just fell flat, then. 
On preview: Colibri: Lazy bastard. 
Spam reported.
There are a few usage principles to keep in mind.
Style guides reflect educated opinions about the most appropriate usage. They are a mechanism to create consistency, and by creating consistency they promote slowing down the pace of change. Slowing down the pace of change promotes clarity of communication. However, style guides necessarily lag common usage, which tends to filter up gradually from the polloi into the ranks of the educated. As a consequence, a style guide should never be confused with Authority. Authority is my job. 
Clarity trumps pedantry. :mad: (Don’t ever quote me on that.)
English is occasionally weak in executing a function consistently, because the masses have rendered it impossible for the educated to create sanctions against abusing their recommendations. Public whippings are needed; not just scoldings.
For OPs like the OP’s, “OPs” is the better choice and “OP’s” an acceptable alternative. There are good explanations of why this is so by those more educated on the topic than I, above. When the source term is all caps–an acronym, say–or a number (“100”)the clearest way to show that it’s a plural is to add a lowercase “s.” Using “OP’s” creates a brief, unnecessary decision point about whether or not a possessive is being created. But of course, as pointed out earlier, there are times when an apostrophe should be added to make it clear that a plural is being created, and other times when an apostrophe might be added for visual consistency. Do’s and don’t’s?
I recommend reading the style guide I will be creating before I die, but I will not be creating it until there is broad acceptance that it will supersede all previous efforts by others. I’m still waiting on that confirmation. In the meantime I’m struggling with garnering acceptance for my first Rule: The closing quotation mark belongs before the final punctuation mark. Putting it at the very end is (as my brother would say) “Stoopit!”.
Well, the US Gov has helpfully done one for their translators:
http://www.howto.gov/web-content/multilingual/spanish-guide
Also, the AP just issued a Spanish-language style guide (just last year):
http://www.manualdeestiloap.com/
Good luck amigo! 
Thanks, but I found one six years ago, shortly after I made the post.
Chief Pedant: Congratulations on “the polloi”. Many would say “the hoi polloi”, not aware that “hoi” is “the”.
However, the Chicago Manual of Style recognizes “the hoi polloi” as the standard usage in English, as does Merriam Webster, which cites “the hoi polloi” in its example of usage of the phrase. “The hoi polloi” is perfectly correct.
From the first link:
It’s also perfectly correct to ask for your French Dip sandwich with au jus on the side.
Never really thought about it but I’ve been a sales professional for forever and in checking my correspondence…
It seems I only use PO in the singular for the most part. The plural is orders.
As in…please send me the PO for the Roberts job.
Please fax your orders to 916-555-1212
I’ve been pretty consistent over the years. I guess POs just looks funny and PO’s is just grammatically wrong.
It is a style issue, not a grammar issue. So what is important is not which style guide you use (unless there is an external requirement), but rather that whichever style you choose, you do so consistently.
Is not.
Well, ok. Maybe “the hoi polloi” is correct, but “the polloi” is correcter.
And if it’s not more correct, it’s at least a more pedantic use.
Anyway, I just came back in to apologize for resurrecting a zombie. How does that happen? There it was–the original thread–sitting right there on my first page. I did not even bother to look at dates.
What’s the deal, Colibri? Is SDMB running out of good questions so they just populate in some old ones? I always assumed zombie threads showed up b/c someone was running a search on something and got the thread hit, resurrecting it without realizing what they were doing. A little education, please? I feel so lame…
I agree with you on that.
You didn’t resurrect the thread, a spammer did. The spam post, and a post reporting it, were removed by samclem so it appears (to the hoi polloi - as a moderator I can still see it) that yours is the first one responding to the zombie. I will often note if a spam post has been removed to resurrect a zombie if someone else has posted subsequently. (If the spam post and any reports are deleted, and there are no other posts, the zombie will float back down to the nether depths and not appear on the front page, so you won’t often see them.)