ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
[Edit added]
The "The above" in the following paragraph was the title of the post. It was a quote from another thread, but, since that post violated Inno rules, so did quoting it in the title of this post. Sigh. The iddea is that sometimes we use abbreviations which when expanded with the words for which the abbreviations stand, causes us to "say" in our minds the very words the rules say we can't use. Using abbreviations is, as I suggest, a way "around" the rules, and that is/was the focus of my discussion.
So here's what I said in my original post, sans that which was removed by the moderator.
----------------
The above was used in another post and I almost responded to it in that post but that would have just gotten the whole thing off track and I didn't want that. But the question was asked and while I don't know the answer, I do question the form of the question itself. Here are my thoughts.
What does one say in one's head when one sees an abbreciation? It's an abbreviation for? And if you can't say what it's an abbreviation for without breaking some rules, how is it okay to use it in a post? But one of the bigger problems to which this points is that people sometimes either don't think about what they are writing and how their audience will take it, or they figure the rules can be skirted because, "hey I didn't exactly do anything specifically wrong, did I?" It's called "legalism" and from a moral and ethical point of view it's generally considered a poor choice in moral decisions.
In other words, rules should be taken in the spirit of their intention as much as possible. Probably better to err on the side of caution. Only lawyers spend countless hours trying to present why things like "is" should mean something different than "is" in this or that context. The rest of us might just consider the spirit of the rule and follow that. Yes, there can be disagreements about what the rule is, but falling back on the exact definition of a word or phrase is often just an excuse for having ignored the spirit of the rule in the first place, and trying to get away with it.
Sadly it's often the the same thing that people do when they find an exploit and use it. They argue that since they can get away with it, it's perfectly okay. Or purchasing wins because you have more money than the next guy. You want to claim that because you are at a higher ranking it means a better player than the other guy who doesn't have the money to compete with you? Really?
Anyway, the quote above is probably innocent. I doubt the poster even considered it other than he/she uses in everyday speech and/or writing. And since nobody ever said anything about it it must be perfectly okay. But like I said, I doubt they even thought about it's use. But maybe now they will?
And finally, what do we mean by offended? After all, the usual response to these kind of things is to question the one who is "offended" and ask, why? In this we suggest the whole thing is a tempest in a teakettle and the one complaining is just an old something...sourpuss, fuddy-duddy or whatever. But that direction is nothing more than name calling since it doesn't answer the question of whether the behavior demonstrated was in the spirit of the rules or not. Would the answer to the question of obeying the spirit of the rule and paying attention to your writing really depend on the "offended" one's emotional state? I think not.
AJ
The "The above" in the following paragraph was the title of the post. It was a quote from another thread, but, since that post violated Inno rules, so did quoting it in the title of this post. Sigh. The iddea is that sometimes we use abbreviations which when expanded with the words for which the abbreviations stand, causes us to "say" in our minds the very words the rules say we can't use. Using abbreviations is, as I suggest, a way "around" the rules, and that is/was the focus of my discussion.
So here's what I said in my original post, sans that which was removed by the moderator.
----------------
The above was used in another post and I almost responded to it in that post but that would have just gotten the whole thing off track and I didn't want that. But the question was asked and while I don't know the answer, I do question the form of the question itself. Here are my thoughts.
What does one say in one's head when one sees an abbreciation? It's an abbreviation for? And if you can't say what it's an abbreviation for without breaking some rules, how is it okay to use it in a post? But one of the bigger problems to which this points is that people sometimes either don't think about what they are writing and how their audience will take it, or they figure the rules can be skirted because, "hey I didn't exactly do anything specifically wrong, did I?" It's called "legalism" and from a moral and ethical point of view it's generally considered a poor choice in moral decisions.
In other words, rules should be taken in the spirit of their intention as much as possible. Probably better to err on the side of caution. Only lawyers spend countless hours trying to present why things like "is" should mean something different than "is" in this or that context. The rest of us might just consider the spirit of the rule and follow that. Yes, there can be disagreements about what the rule is, but falling back on the exact definition of a word or phrase is often just an excuse for having ignored the spirit of the rule in the first place, and trying to get away with it.
Sadly it's often the the same thing that people do when they find an exploit and use it. They argue that since they can get away with it, it's perfectly okay. Or purchasing wins because you have more money than the next guy. You want to claim that because you are at a higher ranking it means a better player than the other guy who doesn't have the money to compete with you? Really?
Anyway, the quote above is probably innocent. I doubt the poster even considered it other than he/she uses in everyday speech and/or writing. And since nobody ever said anything about it it must be perfectly okay. But like I said, I doubt they even thought about it's use. But maybe now they will?
And finally, what do we mean by offended? After all, the usual response to these kind of things is to question the one who is "offended" and ask, why? In this we suggest the whole thing is a tempest in a teakettle and the one complaining is just an old something...sourpuss, fuddy-duddy or whatever. But that direction is nothing more than name calling since it doesn't answer the question of whether the behavior demonstrated was in the spirit of the rules or not. Would the answer to the question of obeying the spirit of the rule and paying attention to your writing really depend on the "offended" one's emotional state? I think not.
AJ
Last edited: