Apronyms

[Tony]

Angela wrote:


> I wonder how long it will take for the 'apronym' results to catch up with those of more well-known terms such as 'Tony McCoy O'Grady".

I am uncatchable

[Tony]

>>> On 01 July 2003 09:49:58 UTC, Angela wrote:


>>> On 27 June 2003 14:18:53 UTC, Angela wrote:
(apronym is currently a googlewhack apart from it not being in the dictionary) and we already have more than 6942 of them.

I have just put 'apronym' into sherlock and got one hit from Lycos. Sherlock shaded the relevance scale only slghtly.

'Apronyms' got the same result.

If the word one is looking for is on a site devoted to that word why would Sherlock list the relvance as less than 100%?

[Angela]

>>> On 01 July 2003 10:25:03 UTC, Tony wrote:

If the word one is looking for is on a site devoted to that word why would Sherlock list the relvance as less than 100%?

Sherlock is now a mystery to me... I'm still trying to work out if the Acronyms Sherlock Plugin can be used in Sherlock 3.

(By the way, you might be uncatchable but my namesakes and I are a few hundred Google hits ahead of you.)

[Angela]

How odd, the number of Google matches has gone down by about 20 each for apronym and apronyms. They must be onto us!

[Jeff Anonymous]

Sorry, was busy, didn't notice until this morning I couldn't scroll down to the fora (due to new layout) and while inspecting the new link table noticed...hey, the logo has changed, and the title!

I think the new title is very fitting, as it incorporates "apt" without falsely implying Tony as the sole contributor.

[Tony]

Jeff Anonymous wrote:

> I think the new title is very fitting, as it incorporates "apt" without falsely implying Tony as the sole contributor.

SOLE
Someone Owns Lone Effort

SOLE CONTRIBUTOR
Someone On Lonesome Expands Content Of New Topic, Rebuffing Brilliant Utterances That Others Remit

[Angela]

>>> On 04 July 2003 23:27:09 UTC, Tony wrote:

SOLE CONTRIBUTOR
Someone On Lonesome Expands Content Of New Topic, Rebuffing Brilliant Utterances That Others Remit


It is often emphasised that there is no 'I' in teamwork. There definitely is one in sole contributor!

[Tony]

Angela wrote:

It is often emphasised that there is no 'I' in teamwork. There definitely is one in sole contributor!

> On 04 July 2003 23:27:09 UTC, Tony wrote:

> SOLE CONTRIBUTOR
> Someone On Lonesome Expands Content Of New Topic, Rebuffing Brilliant Utterances That Others Remit

Rebutting Incisive & Brilliant

[Jeff Anonymous]

<angela>I might have missed a few spots</angela>

The submission form has a reference to the "Acronyms Forums" and "Acronymising tips," two features which report to have traded in their C's for P's.

[Angela]

Acronymising Tips should definitely be Apronymising Tips, I'll change that soon. I'm not so sure about the forums. I think they should still be open for discussing acronyms -- I can't imagine any discussion about acronyms which wouldn't interest us some amount. Most of the discussions here are started by us, and we discuss apronyms, but I don't want to discourage other people from posting because they're not sure if their topic is apronymic enough.

There are a few pages where I've said acronymaniac rather than apronymaniac... I couldn't decide which was best. The pages to do with the ACRONYMS stack still use the old title and logo because the stack has not been renamed. I don't think it will be renamed... that way it can be easily distinguished from the Mac OS X app (previously codenamed aquanyms, now appronyms) which will be called Apronyms.

[Jeff]

Yeah, on second thought, I think the forum should be open to all acronymic discussion.  (Why do we call it the "forums" or "fora" anyway, when there is only one forum that I see?)


>>> On 06 July 2003 00:48:32 UTC, Angela wrote:

Acronymising Tips should definitely be Apronymising Tips, I'll change that soon. I'm not so sure about the forums. I think they should still be open for discussing acronyms -- I can't imagine any discussion about acronyms which wouldn't interest us some amount. Most of the discussions here are started by us, and we discuss apronyms, but I don't want to discourage other people from posting because they're not sure if their topic is apronymic enough.

There are a few pages where I've said acronymaniac rather than apronymaniac... I couldn't decide which was best. The pages to do with the ACRONYMS stack still use the old title and logo because the stack has not been renamed. I don't think it will be renamed... that way it can be easily distinguished from the Mac OS X app (previously codenamed aquanyms, now appronyms) which will be called Apronyms.

[Angela]

Well, there are several threads. I've often wondered whether the title should be singular.

[Tony]

 Angela wrote:


> Well, there are several threads.

And we can all pick the one to suit us, as we weave our wordy magic, we just have to try not to be woolly headed and hope others will cotton on to our meaning

[Angela]

>>> On 06 July 2003 07:48:02 UTC, Tony wrote:

 Angela wrote:


> Well, there are several threads.

And we can all pick the one to suit us, as we weave our wordy magic, we just have to try not to be woolly headed and hope others will cotton on to our meaning

I see you're spinning another of those warped yarns where you entwine our chat with some other line of thought according to your whim. It might prove you can string two words together but some might say it's lame and even crapy.

[Tony]

Angela wrote:

> I see you're spinning another of those warped yarns where you entwine our chat with some other line of thought according to your whim.
> It might prove you can string two words together but some might say it's lame and even crapy.

Ouch, I felt that, but my basic reply is "Stuff and nonsense!"