No, Nereid, until I troll back through this post, and the links I've been offered (I've only bookmarked them so far), I have nought...but I think it will build nicely, and I will put together and present a draft as soon as I know what my assignment load will be for this semester (or plead for more time, as the case may be...).

Why don't people like i.e.? or is it IOW they don't like?

OTOH why should they like it?

We'd better watch it with the mixed metaphors - we might end up throwing stones at horses in mid-stream, and that's a stitch of another colour!

IIRC, okay....does anyone use IDR (I don't recall)? IJDK (I just don't know)?

How about IF? (I forget!)

__________________

I now have IMHO (in my honest opinion)
and IMHO (in my humble opinion)
hmmm....thank you, aeolus

pity this isn't SEP (someone else's problem)

__________________

Seems you've got QAP (Quite a problem), Cran. IMHO (In my humble opinion), IMHO should be "In my honest opinion".

This is as big as the KBO-Planet problem! .

__________________
Limericks, written by me: http://limericker.blogspot.com

UGTR! (you got that right!), rahuldandekar,

hmm...yes, 'honest' rather than 'humble' does seem to reflect most uses that I've read so far...IMV(humble)O.

Nooo...you think? :huh:

No one's asked me about RAVE or [unprintable] yet; I'm crushed!

(I posted them in another thread; now IF which one! :blink: )

__________________

found it!
in "ideas are cheap" - don't know how to put that in as a link, yet, sorry :unsure:

__________________

You see the "http://" button? Click on it and see what happens. You need to have the URL (what, another acronym??!) ready to paste in (it's a real pain typing these &8^$#@ things). Like this: "ideas are cheap ..."

Now, RAVE clearly means the RAdial Velocity Experiment, everyone knows that! :P :blink:

Ah grammar! :huh: It's important to keep its democratic character clearly in mind, isn't it? Otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by people saying things like "This is something up with which I will not put!", would we not? B)

what specific defenitions has been derived for posting etiquettes?


sunil

the site i linked to earlier discusses that very quote, Nereid.

"Prepositions at the End.
Along with split infinitives, a favorite bugbear of the traditionalists. Whatever the merit of the rule — and both historically and logically, there's not much — there's a substantial body of opinion against end-of-sentence prepositions; if you want to keep the crusty old-timers happy, try to avoid ending written sentences (and clauses) with prepositions, such as to, with, from, at, and in. Instead of writing "The topics we want to write on," where the preposition on ends the clause, consider "The topics on which we want to write." Prepositions should usually go before (pre-position) the words they modify.

On the other hand — and it's a big other hand — old-timers shouldn't always dictate your writing, and you don't deserve your writing license if you elevate this rough guideline into a superstition. Don't let it make your writing clumsy or obscure; if a sentence is more graceful with a final preposition, let it stand. A sentence becomes unnecessarily obscure when it's filled with from whoms and with whiches. According to a widely circulated (and often mutated) story, ... Supposedly an editor had clumsily rearranged one of Churchill’s sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition, and the Prime Minister, very proud of his style, scribbled this note in reply: "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put."

"The Oxford Companion to the English Language (no edition cited) states that the original was “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”"

that sounds infinitely more Churchill-ian to me.

...

I never quite got the abbreviation craze. It's not like it saves all that much time by leaving out a few letters here and there (that goes more for internet speak - ppl who use u and i c and r instead of actual letters).

Anyway ... brb, ttyl

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

You see the "http://" button? Click on it and see what happens. You need to have the URL (what, another acronym??!) ready to paste in (it's a real pain typing these &8^$#@ things). Like this: "ideas are cheap ..."

[/b][/quote]
Click on this...paste in that...okay

:huh: I didn't know that!

I first used RAVE and [unprintable] in a tutorial and presentation for first year Earth Science students at Flinders University, South Australia, regarding the quality of student reports and assignments. It was better, IMhO (lower case for 'humble'?) and IMHO, to produce RAVE reports that actually show an understanding of the topic, rather than [unprintable] (I'm presenting it that way here, because I don't wish to offend) reports which only show a willingness to do just enough to pass...

RAVE = Relevant, Accurate, Valid, Erudite - a valuable test of the contribution, don't you think?

[unprintable] = Sloppy Hype, Inane Technobabble - need I say more?

__________________

ahh grammar! I used to see grammar all the time but she's dead now

__________________

PS. fraser - thank you so much for including a 'post preview' it does allow for picking up most of the typos, and other errors

How about an intrinsic 'spell-checker'?

We can teach it to accept acronyms and identities as we go...

__________________

Building a spell checker into a forum is pretty hard. However if you'd like a spell checker the Google toolbar has a built in spell checker for forms. It will check the spelling in every form on the page and picks up most mistakes (I haven't known it to miss one yet).

Click here for the Google Toolbar for FireFox.

Or here for Internet Explorer.

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

thanks, matthew

"System requirements: Windows XP/2000..."

I'm still pottering along with '98 - my computer is too ancient to cope with XP (that's on my partner/carer/sanity-checker's computer - BTW, she wants to know who to send the condolence cards/flowers to...she thinks I'm probably giving you all as hard a time as I give my lecturers/supervisors)

I usually check my own work (missed a couple, though, so far) - I was...you know...sort of...thinking some others might...well, never mind.

glossary: wrt = with regard to
BTW = by the way

__________________

wrt is also "with respect to"

Might be fun to compile a list of those with 2, such as:
IIRC (recall/remember)
wrt (regard/respect)
IMHO (honest/humble) - interesting that the two here are not synonyms, except very generally.

yes, I can see a 'dual-purpose' acronym section, especially for non-synonymous entries....
ah well, back to work....(btw) :blink:

__________________

VanderL, "BABB reputation"? :huh:

__________________

Good morning, UTers; I trust you had a good weekend ...my! but it gets quiet around here when you're gone... :unsure:

I noticed yesterday that I was the number one poster boy (hey ma! look at me! I'm a poster boy!) - I'm a tad concerned that maybe I've been hogging the starlight h34r: - just a tad?

What is the etiquette? Should I butt out and sit back for a while?

Oh, and what is the etiquette in the case of 'personal problem' postings? I mean, we don't really seem geared up for 'Oprah/Donohue/The Doctor is in...' situations; nor, I believe, should we be - but I do get very concerned when personal cries for help turn up...

__________________

Please don't slow down just because no-one else is posting as high a number of posts per day. I went through a similar stage of posting when I was a new member, I think I was doing about 30-40 posts per day at my peak. I've slowed down considerably, if I kept that average I would have had over twenty thousand posts by now. But I left UT for a while (about 9 months, maybe longer) before coming back.

In