next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Quoting bdigout <bdigout@seaside.ns.ca>:
> I didn't realize using acronyms was offensive, and I'm sorry if I
> offended anyone. I'll be sure not to do it again.
* not offended - it's just that this was the first impression that
came to mind from the abbreviation. There have been discussions on the
list of not using the bander's abbreviations for Bird species, and a
bit of sad nostalgia since our daughter's skeleton is in the
collection of the University of Toronto medical school.
fred.
==================================================
> Jim Wolford wrote:
>
>> I heartily agree, and I will extend
>> my comment to any acronyms -- courtesy says that any
>> abbreviation/acronym is identified on its first use in any message or
>> series of messages. Respectfully from Jim in Wolfville.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> FROM: Phil Schappert <philjs@eastlink.ca
>>> SUBJECT: RE: [NATURENS] DEAD NSWO
>>> DATE: March 31, 2015 at 5:17:07 PM ADT
>>> TO: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca [2]
>>>
>>> At 4:14 PM -0300 3/31/15, Gail Bruhm wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if other Nova Scotia women (and men) find this
> statement offensive
>>>
>>> What's to offend? I suspect that Fred was
> actually lampooning the use of virtually incomprehensible, or at least
> non-sensical, specialist jargon on a general nature list (ie. not all of
> us are birders). I thought "Nova Scotia Woman" for NSWO was a pretty
> good guess (though this context made it a curious comment on the part of
> the original poster).
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
Mudpuppy Night - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
study our books - http://pinicola.ca/books/index.htm
RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
(613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
"[The] two fundamental steps of scientific thought - the conjecture
and refutation of Popper - have little place in the usual conception
of intelligence. If something is to be dismissed as inadequate, it is
surely not Darwin [, whose] works manifest the activity of a mind
seeking for wisdom, a value which conventional philosophy has largely
abandoned." Ghiselen, 1969. Triumph of the Darwinian Method, p 237.
------------------------------------------------------------
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects