PDA

View Full Version : Posting etiquette?



cran
2005-Aug-02, 07:47 AM
Moderators, Universes, Superclusters, experienced UTers,
As a newbie, I have found that half of the challenge here is to translate the acronyms; half is to understand the smilies and all of the other trimmings; half is to understand the argument threads; and half is to find the similar threads elsewhere - that's 4 halves! No wonder I'm beside myself!

Is there a guidebook on posting etiquette? (you know, "Forum participation for dummies!") A glossary of terms for acronyms?

I found the one on rules (no flaming or shouting or taboo topics), but not the rest of it (eg, multiple quotes in one posting); but mostly the acronyms (what does OOM mean?) - the rest can wait.

Jakenorrish
2005-Aug-02, 07:59 AM
I reckon that you should just give it a go and see how you get on. As long as you are polite (ish!) and not overly aggresive, then you'll be fine. If you step over any lines, someone will point it out....

cran
2005-Aug-02, 08:31 AM
Thank you, Jakenorrish,

but that still doesn't tell me what OOM means....

Uranut
2005-Aug-02, 08:48 AM
Here are a few links that may help:

http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/starthere/ch...s.html#ACRONYMS (http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/starthere/chatacronyms.html#ACRONYMS)

http://www.netlingo.com/inframes.cfm

http://www.acronymsearch.com/


The last one is probably the best.

Josh
2005-Aug-02, 09:14 AM
Hey Cran.

I often write private messages to people who use acronyms excessively, asking them to stop. I also find it a bit annoying.

OOM, in most contexts in here anyway, means Order Of Magnitude.

feel free to write us a glossary if you find more answers.

cran
2005-Aug-02, 09:37 AM
Uranut, thank you - I will follow up those links.

Josh, thank you also; I'll certainly consider putting together such a glossary, but I'm still getting over the last glossary of terms I prepared for first year geoscience students ('accretion and differentiation in planetary formation models' - catchy title, huh?); but what is the number (1.618...)? It seems like it should be familiar, but it ain't!

Planetwatcher
2005-Aug-02, 10:32 AM
cran;
Thankyou for raising some important issues.
Most of the smilies are self explaining. The stickist ones in my book are
top center which I liken to 'Oh my God!'
Rolleyes, 'Not this again."
Blink, 'Difficult to understand.'
Top right is wink.
Two below that one is 'suspicious'
The one with the sunglasses 'Hey that's cool'.
and the bottom right, the black one, 'I put my foot in it this time.' or 'This is going to **** somebody off.' or 'This pisses me off.' or 'discusting'
tongue out, 'happy',
grinning, 'happier,'

Anyway that's my interpretation.

As for acromnins, look for it's first usage, or ask. Nobody will fault you for it.
But some you will frequently see are

'C', the speed of light
'>C', slower then light
'C>', faster then light
U.T., Universe Today
B.A., Bad Astronomy (Another space discussion forum simular to ours. Many members belong to both.)
LOL, Lots of luck
IMHO, In my humble opinion (usually means I think I'm right)
ROTFL, Rolling on the floor laughing,
'E', energy

I don't even know what 'OOM' means.
Can't think of any others just now.

Arguments can occur anywhere, but are mostly confiened to the alternate theories sections. Don't be afraid to express your point.
Just don't call names and try to be poite.

Most of all, no question, that is to say no honest question will ever get you a bloody nose here on U.T. (Universe Today)

Rethorital, sarcastic, and know it all questons however will seldom NOT get you a bloody nose as well.

If you ever have an honest and real complaint that none of us mods are any help over, you will find our sysop Fraser to be fair and honest, and quick to respond.

Hope this helps you, and hope to see more from you on here.

aeolus
2005-Aug-02, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Planetwatcher@Aug 2 2005, 10:32 AM

'C', the speed of light
'>C', slower then light
'C>', faster then light
U.T., Universe Today
B.A., Bad Astronomy (Another space discussion forum simular to ours. Many members belong to both.)
LOL, Lots of luck
IMHO, In my humble opinion (usually means I think I'm right)
ROTFL, Rolling on the floor laughing,
'E', energy

lol= lots of luck???

I always thought it was laugh(ing) out loud. I've never heard of "lots of luck" ever before. Maybe I live in a dilusional world. Well, I do. So maybe I just don't know what lol stands for.

Matthew
2005-Aug-02, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by cran@Aug 2 2005, 08:37 PM
but what is the number (1.618...)? It seems like it should be familiar, but it ain't!


That number is the golden number, phi. It, like pi, is an irrational number. Here is some info on the golden number / ratio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)


LOL, Lots of luck

Lol means "laugh out loud"

A few people have started using the notation 2c, at the end of their post. It just refers to "that my 2 cents".

We use quite a few scientific acronymns here. So it is usually assumed that people know what 'c' is (speed of light). Or what a ly is (light year).

Nereid
2005-Aug-02, 12:18 PM
About OOM:

It may be that I am partly responsible for much of its use here in UT (I certainly do use it a lot).

The basic idea is to talk about how big (or small) something is in a way that's more accurate than just ordinary English words, but without needing to get tied up with too much precision.

For example, both the Earth and the Sun are 'bigger' than the Moon, with Sun being 'much bigger'. But then, the Milky Way galaxy is also 'much bigger' too. So, instead of trying to add lots of 'much', we could talk about how much bigger the Earth is than the Moon, at an OOM level. If it's radius, then the Earth is ~an OOM bigger than the Moon (~6400 km vs ~1700 km), and the Sun ~2 OOM bigger than the Earth (~700,000 km vs ~6400 km). An easy way to think of it is if you express the numbers as powers of 10 (so 6400 is 3.8, and 1700 is 3.2), an OOM difference is a difference of 1 (and the Earth and Moon differ by only ~0.6 OOM, in radius). Anyone want to do an OOM calculation of the size of the Milky Way, cf the Earth?

This can be very helpful indeed when you're trying to figure out if some new, or alternative, idea is 'even in the right ballpark'; when described in mere words, it may be hard to tell if, say, there could be an undiscovered 'tenth planet' just like Jupiter, orbiting twice as far out as Neptune; when you do an OOM calculation you quickly realise there can't be (want to try for yourself?)

The great thing about OOM calculations is they don't have to be exact! The other great thing is that you can nearly always find a way to do one or three that will take you no more than an hour or three (this is, itself, an OOM estimate)!!

My €0.02

aeolus
2005-Aug-02, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Nereid@Aug 2 2005, 12:18 PM
Anyone want to do an OOM calculation of the size of the Milky Way, cf the Earth?

sure! I'll give it a try:

radius of Earth = 6.4 x 10^3 km
radius of MW = 50000 LY
=4.7 x 10^17 km

OOM difference of about 14, right, Nereid?

and as to this little guy:

My €0.02

...genius :) .

rahuldandekar
2005-Aug-02, 03:42 PM
The way I was taught :
radius of earth = 6.4 x 10^3 km ~ 10^4 km
radius of milky way = 4.7 x 10^17 km ~ 10^17 (I trust you on the exact radius, Aeolus :D)

Thus, OOM difference of about 13. B)

I critisised you, Aeolus. Now gimme your shoes (your sig ;) )! Hehe.

(I hope this is not deleted. Any way, I could be teaching Cran a few things about etiquette... If my post is deleted, he will know what not to say :huh: . If it isn't, I guess he'll know this much satire is permitted... :ph34r: )

Nereid
2005-Aug-02, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by aeolus+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeolus)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>radius of Earth = 6.4 x 10^3 km
radius of MW = 50000 LY
=4.7 x 10^17 km

OOM difference of about 14, right, Nereid?[/b]<!--QuoteBegin-rahuldandekar
radius of earth = 6.4 x 10^3 km ~ 10^4 km
radius of milky way = 4.7 x 10^17 km ~ 10^17 (I trust you on the exact radius, Aeolus biggrin.gif)

Thus, OOM difference of about 13.[/quote]
OK, so 1 light year ~ 10^13 km
If we assume the radius of the MW is 5 x 10^4 ly, then that&#39;s ~5 x 10^17 km (OK, aeolus&#39; has 4.7 instead of 5; that&#39;s the same, at an OOM level&#33;).
5/6.4 = 0.7; 17-3 = 14; log(0.7) = -0.15; 14-0.15 = 13.2 (OOM) ... this is the &#39;right&#39; answer.

But if we&#39;re only interested in the integer OOM, 13 is good.

Is 14 OK too? It all depends on what you&#39;re trying to do&#33;

If your &#39;wild, over wine idea&#39; would work if the OOM difference were 5 or 6, but that 8 or more would knock it out completely, then the faster you can calculate 13 or 14 the better ... you know your wild idea is hopeless, don&#39;t waste any more time on it. If your wild idea would work with either 13 or 14, then again it doesn&#39;t matter ... you&#39;re in the right ballpark, and you can go and do some more detailed work, knowing that your idea isn&#39;t hopeless.

The important thing is that OOMs are useful tools to help you do the important things, not ends in themselves. They are especially helpful in that you can often get a good &#39;steer&#39; very quickly.

In short, both UT posters get gold stars&#33; B)

aeolus
2005-Aug-02, 07:40 PM
Gold Star&#33; And on my first try?&#33;?&#33; Woohoo&#33;

And rahul, I totally deserved the criticism. It was an elementary mistake. I offer you my shoes.

cran
2005-Aug-03, 12:36 AM
an irrational number, huh? somehow, that figures...I guess I&#39;m in the right place after all...

thank you all for your replies; I&#39;ll avoid LOL until there&#39;s some consensus, or unless I can make the context clear...

and I better double check any numbers, I wouldn&#39;t want to be too many OOMs (or is that OsOM?) out either way&#33;

thanks, planetwatcher; I thought the little guy bottom right was Kenny from South Park - eager to please, but self-destructive...

Well, I&#39;ve got labs this morning...so I&#39;ll catch you later.

thanks again.

Matthew
2005-Aug-03, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by rahuldandekar@Aug 3 2005, 02:42 AM
(I hope this is not deleted. Any way, I could be teaching Cran a few things about etiquette... If my post is deleted, he will know what not to say :huh: . If it isn&#39;t, I guess he&#39;ll know this much satire is permitted... :ph34r: )
Why would your post be deleted Rahul?

rahuldandekar
2005-Aug-03, 03:30 PM
Hehe, the critisism... just a joke, Matt. :)

Nereid
2005-Aug-03, 04:24 PM
OOMs (or is that OsOM?)
Consider an attorney, or a surgeon; consider a country with a &#39;big boss&#39; attorney, or surgeon, they are called, are they not &#39;Attorney General&#39; and &#39;Surgeon General&#39;?

Now suppose we have several countries with these exulted folk, and there is an international convention to which they are all invited.

Is this a conference of Attorneys General and Surgeons General? Or one of Attorney Generals and Surgeon Generals? After all, do we not say &#39;how many attorneys are there in {name} law firm?&#39; or &#39;how many surgeons are there in {name} hospital?&#39;? :lol:

OOM is to Surgeon General as {X} is to ...?

aeolus
2005-Aug-03, 06:48 PM
Surgeons General, Attorneys General, Sons-in-Law, Courts Martial, Brothers Grimm, Heirs Apparent, Men-of-War, and yes... OsOM

Nereid
2005-Aug-03, 07:18 PM
You say mothers superior (http://www.bartleby.com/68/49/4649.html), I say mother superiors (and attorney (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2003/07/20/2003060196) generals (http://www.englishforums.com/English/AttorneyGeneralsAttorneysGeneral/xjjc/Post.htm)).

One more example of folk in the US being more conservative than those from &#39;the mother country&#39; (at least wrt language)? :D

cran
2005-Aug-03, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Nereid@Aug 4 2005, 03:18 AM
You say mothers superior (http://www.bartleby.com/68/49/4649.html), I say mother superiors (and attorney (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2003/07/20/2003060196) generals (http://www.englishforums.com/English/AttorneyGeneralsAttorneysGeneral/xjjc/Post.htm)).

One more example of folk in the US being more conservative than those from &#39;the mother country&#39; (at least wrt language)? :D
Does this mean that you reside in the land of mother tongues? (or mother&#39;s tongue?) and you would say &#39;order of magnitudes&#39;?

Josh
2005-Aug-03, 11:11 PM
Nereid, are you saying that attorneys general and mothers-in-law etc are the US way to say things or the proper queen&#39;s english way of saying things?

Nereid
2005-Aug-04, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Josh@Aug 3 2005, 11:11 PM
Nereid, are you saying that attorneys general and mothers-in-law etc are the US way to say things or the proper queen&#39;s english way of saying things?
Far be it from lil &#39;ol me, from a cold realm a dozen or three au (OOM) from the home planet, to comment on what &#39;the proper&#39; way of saying anything is&#33; <_<

However, as in astronomy, so linguistics; the &#39;proper&#39; way to say (or write) anything is principally democratic - if &#39;mother superiors&#39; is what native speakers in the UK think (on the whole) is the better way to say it, then it&#39;s &#39;proper&#39;; if &#39;mothers superior&#39; ... US ... You can refine your analysis by taking subsets - BBC announcers vs White House speech writers, for example. The links I posted were a (feeble?) attempt to show what some folk - who presumably have gone out and done some quantitative observations ;) - had to say on the matter.

Josh
2005-Aug-04, 12:46 AM
heh, I wasn&#39;t saying you were claiming one to be more proper than the other .. but ... I was. The Queen&#39;s English is correct. That&#39;s not to say that people in England speak english any better than people in the USA. There are those, however, who try to maintain a level of correctness in their usage of the language, I believe. Even if most in the UK don&#39;t say "mother&#39;s superior", it is still the correct way to say it according to the english language (british, australian, new zealand, etc ...). Isn&#39;t it?

I guess you could argue that US english is the benchmark seeing as most of the world has been forced to learn american english through TV and film. Such an argument is made here (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html). good site.

aeolus
2005-Aug-04, 01:47 AM
It doesn&#39;t matter where you live, English grammar rules hold true anywhere. An attorney general is an attorney, a general type of attorney. general qualifies attorney, it&#39;s an adverb that modifies attorney. The proper form is Attorneys general. Dont matter to me, though.

Josh
2005-Aug-04, 03:20 AM
Exactly. And english snobs shall we remain.

damienpaul
2005-Aug-04, 03:25 AM
Yoda, even though, some of us speak like

cran
2005-Aug-04, 05:04 AM
AFAIK - as far as I know, yes?
Just got that in a reply on another thread...my first entry in the glossary&#33;

&#39;created a monster, I have&#39;

Nereid
2005-Aug-04, 08:05 AM
AFAIK - as far as I know, yes?
Yes.

Do you have IIRC (if i recall/remember correctly)? IOW (in other words - though why folk don&#39;t like i.e. is a different kettle of toast&#33; :D )

aeolus
2005-Aug-04, 10:48 AM
oh, you&#39;ll want "IMO", then, too.

"In My Opinion", also IMHO (honest opinion).

cran
2005-Aug-04, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Nereid@Aug 4 2005, 04:05 PM

AFAIK - as far as I know, yes?
Yes.

Do you have IIRC (if i recall/remember correctly)? IOW (in other words - though why folk don&#39;t like i.e. is a different kettle of toast&#33; :D )
No, Nereid, until I troll back through this post, and the links I&#39;ve been offered (I&#39;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&#39;t people like i.e.? or is it IOW they don&#39;t like?

OTOH why should they like it?

We&#39;d better watch it with the mixed metaphors - we might end up throwing stones at horses in mid-stream, and that&#39;s a stitch of another colour&#33;

IIRC, okay....does anyone use IDR (I don&#39;t recall)? IJDK (I just don&#39;t know)?

How about IF? (I forget&#33;)

cran
2005-Aug-04, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by aeolus@Aug 4 2005, 06:48 PM
oh, you&#39;ll want "IMO", then, too.

"In My Opinion", also IMHO (honest opinion).
I now have IMHO (in my honest opinion)
and IMHO (in my humble opinion)
hmmm....thank you, aeolus

pity this isn&#39;t SEP (someone else&#39;s problem)

rahuldandekar
2005-Aug-04, 11:25 AM
Seems you&#39;ve got QAP (Quite a problem), Cran. IMHO (In my humble opinion), IMHO should be "In my honest opinion". :lol:

This is as big as the KBO-Planet problem&#33; :D :D .

cran
2005-Aug-04, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by rahuldandekar@Aug 4 2005, 07:25 PM
Seems you&#39;ve got QAP (Quite a problem), Cran.


UGTR&#33; (you got that right&#33;), rahuldandekar,


IMHO (In my humble opinion), IMHO should be "In my honest opinion". :lol:
hmm...yes, &#39;honest&#39; rather than &#39;humble&#39; does seem to reflect most uses that I&#39;ve read so far...IMV(humble)O.


This is as big as the KBO-Planet problem&#33; :D :D .

Nooo...you think? :huh:

No one&#39;s asked me about RAVE or [unprintable] yet; I&#39;m crushed&#33; :( :(

(I posted them in another thread; now IF which one&#33; :blink: )

cran
2005-Aug-04, 12:25 PM
found it&#33; :)
in "ideas are cheap" - don&#39;t know how to put that in as a link, yet, sorry :unsure:

Nereid
2005-Aug-04, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by cran@Aug 4 2005, 12:25 PM
found it&#33; :)
in "ideas are cheap" - don&#39;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??&#33;) ready to paste in (it&#39;s a real pain typing these &8^&#036;#@ things). Like this: "ideas are cheap ..." (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8079)

Now, RAVE clearly means the RAdial Velocity Experiment (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/rave/), everyone knows that&#33; :P :blink: :lol:

Nereid
2005-Aug-04, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by aeolus@Aug 4 2005, 01:47 AM
It doesn&#39;t matter where you live, English grammar rules hold true anywhere. An attorney general is an attorney, a general type of attorney. general qualifies attorney, it&#39;s an adverb that modifies attorney. The proper form is Attorneys general. Dont matter to me, though.
Ah grammar&#33; :huh: It&#39;s important to keep its democratic character clearly in mind, isn&#39;t it? Otherwise we&#39;d be overwhelmed by people saying things like "This is something up with which I will not put&#33;", would we not? :rolleyes: B)

suntrack2
2005-Aug-04, 04:27 PM
what specific defenitions has been derived for posting etiquettes?


sunil

Josh
2005-Aug-04, 10:53 PM
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&#39;s not much — there&#39;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&#39;s a big other hand — old-timers shouldn&#39;t always dictate your writing, and you don&#39;t deserve your writing license if you elevate this rough guideline into a superstition. Don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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

cran
2005-Aug-05, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Nereid+Aug 4 2005, 09:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nereid &#064; Aug 4 2005, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-cran@Aug 4 2005, 12:25 PM
found it&#33; :)
in "ideas are cheap" - don&#39;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??&#33;) ready to paste in (it&#39;s a real pain typing these &8^&#036;#@ things). Like this: "ideas are cheap ..." (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8079)

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


Now, RAVE clearly means the RAdial Velocity Experiment (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/rave/), everyone knows that&#33; :P :blink: :lol:

:huh: I didn&#39;t know that&#33;

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 &#39;humble&#39;?) and IMHO, to produce RAVE reports that actually show an understanding of the topic, rather than [unprintable] (I&#39;m presenting it that way here, because I don&#39;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&#39;t you think? :)

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

cran
2005-Aug-05, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Nereid@Aug 4 2005, 09:09 PM
Ah grammar&#33; :huh:
ahh grammar&#33; I used to see grammar all the time :) but she&#39;s dead now :(

cran
2005-Aug-06, 01:24 AM
PS. fraser - thank you so much for including a &#39;post preview&#39; it does allow for picking up most of the typos, and other errors :)

How about an intrinsic &#39;spell-checker&#39;? :D

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

Matthew
2005-Aug-06, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by cran@Aug 6 2005, 12:24 PM
PS. fraser - thank you so much for including a &#39;post preview&#39; it does allow for picking up most of the typos, and other errors :)

How about an intrinsic &#39;spell-checker&#39;? :D

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&#39;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&#39;t known it to miss one yet).

Click here for the Google Toolbar for FireFox. (http://toolbar.google.com/firefox/index.html)

Or here for Internet Explorer. (http://toolbar.google.com/index_2)

cran
2005-Aug-06, 04:46 AM
thanks, matthew

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

I&#39;m still pottering along with &#39;98 - my computer is too ancient to cope with XP (that&#39;s on my partner/carer/sanity-checker&#39;s computer - BTW, she wants to know who to send the condolence cards/flowers to...she thinks I&#39;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 :)

Nereid
2005-Aug-06, 07:51 AM
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.

cran
2005-Aug-06, 08:15 AM
yes, I can see a &#39;dual-purpose&#39; acronym section, especially for non-synonymous entries....
ah well, back to work....(btw) :blink:

cran
2005-Aug-08, 12:28 AM
VanderL, "BABB reputation"? :huh:

cran
2005-Aug-08, 01:44 AM
Good morning, UTers; I trust you had a good weekend :) ...my&#33; but it gets quiet around here when you&#39;re gone... :unsure:

I noticed yesterday that I was the number one poster boy (hey ma&#33; look at me&#33; I&#39;m a poster boy&#33;) - I&#39;m a tad concerned that maybe I&#39;ve been hogging the starlight :ph34r: - 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 &#39;personal problem&#39; postings? I mean, we don&#39;t really seem geared up for &#39;Oprah/Donohue/The Doctor is in...&#39; situations; nor, I believe, should we be - but I do get very concerned when personal cries for help turn up...

Matthew
2005-Aug-08, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by cran@Aug 8 2005, 12:44 PM
I noticed yesterday that I was the number one poster boy (hey ma&#33; look at me&#33; I&#39;m a poster boy&#33;) - I&#39;m a tad concerned that maybe I&#39;ve been hogging the starlight :ph34r: - just a tad?

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

Please don&#39;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&#39;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 short: post as much or as little as you feel.

No-one is really too concerned with the number of posts you do, but more concerned about the quality of your posts. Which are quite a high standard anyway.... so you&#39;re pretty much set cran. ;)

cran
2005-Aug-08, 10:42 AM
Thank you, matthew; that makes me feel much more comfortable about it.

But, as to the other - posting &#39;personal problems&#39; or cries for help?

Is there, or indeed, should there be, a protocol for dealing with such postings?
eg, should &#39;personal&#39; postings be replied to privately? or referred to moderators? or do we just &#39;wing it&#39; and hope for the best?

jami cat
2005-Sep-06, 01:53 AM
We did a multiple quote thread in the BABB that went to...infinity. Then it disappeared...hmmm.

It never returned :(

Josh
2005-Sep-06, 02:03 AM
It must have gained enlightenment ...

Don't worry .. it's in a better palce now.

Nereid
2005-Sep-06, 02:15 AM
We did a multiple quote thread in the BABB that went to...infinity. Then it disappeared...hmmm.

It never returned :(
I'll find it, and merge it with this (or vice versa), if folk think that would be A GOOD IDEA ...

jkmccrann
2005-Oct-27, 06:35 AM
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.

In regards to IMHO, I always thought it was humble, as isn't it taken as a given that when an opinion is expressed and espoused that its not going to be a `false' opine? Just a minor nitpick, but I can't understand why you'd expressly state that the opinion you're stating is your honest opinion? Isn't it assumed?