| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:03:07 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,682 |
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to NASA
as Nasa.
On 01/10/2025 10:02, Davey wrote:
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to NASA
as Nasa.
Many computer systems default to that.
On 01/10/2025 in message <10bisrl$8qvu$1@dont-email.me> JMB99 wrote:
On 01/10/2025 10:02, Davey wrote:
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to
NASA as Nasa.
Many computer systems default to that.
And the BBC News sub titles recently announced Nasser was returning
to the moon :-)
On 01/10/2025 10:02, Davey wrote:
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to
NASA as Nasa.
Many computer systems default to that.
If they do, then they are also wrong. But you can re-programme a list of words in your onboard dictionary.
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to NASA
as Nasa. Since this is clearly wrong,
This states, most confusingly,
that acronyms which form pronounceable words only have the first letter >capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, under their
policy, be written as 'Raf'.
I hope Lord Reith reaches out from the grave and shakes somebody up.
On 01/10/2025 11:56, Davey wrote:
If they do, then they are also wrong. But you can re-programme a
list of words in your onboard dictionary.
It is usually out of your control so no dictionary to reprogram.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, under their
policy, be written as 'Raf'.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, underBut pronounced "Raif" ?
their policy, be written as 'Raf'.
On 01/10/2025 in message <10bisrl$8qvu$1@dont-email.me> JMB99 wrote:
On 01/10/2025 10:02, Davey wrote:
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to NASA
as Nasa.
Many computer systems default to that.
And the BBC News sub titles recently announced Nasser was returning to
the moon :-)
On 01/10/2025 10:52, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 01/10/2025 in message <10bisrl$8qvu$1@dont-email.me> JMB99 wrote:
On 01/10/2025 10:02, Davey wrote:
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to
NASA as Nasa.
Many computer systems default to that.
And the BBC News sub titles recently announced Nasser was returning
to the moon :-)
Gamal Abdel Nasser will have a job to do that as he died in 1970
unless someone is flying his coffin or ashes to the moon?
(Gamal Abdel Nasser was the second president of Egypt, serving from
1956 until his death in 1970)
On 01/10/2025 10:52, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 01/10/2025 in message <10bisrl$8qvu$1@dont-email.me> JMB99 wrote:
On 01/10/2025 10:02, Davey wrote:
I recently noticed that the BBC's Red Button service referred to NASA >>>>as Nasa.
Many computer systems default to that.
And the BBC News sub titles recently announced Nasser was returning to >>the moon :-)
Gamal Abdel Nasser will have a job to do that as he died in 1970 unless >someone is flying his coffin or ashes to the moon?
This states, most confusingly,
that acronyms which form pronounceable words only have the first letter >>capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, under their >>policy, be written as 'Raf'.
"RAF" does not form a pronounceable word.
This states, most confusingly,
that acronyms which form pronounceable words only have the first letter >>>capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, under their >>>policy, be written as 'Raf'.
"RAF" does not form a pronounceable word.
Of course it does. It sounds like "faff" with an 'r' - "raff".
Likewise gaff, laff, naff, taff.
In article <slrn10dt0cj.1smc.abuse@news.pr.network>,
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse2025@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
This states, most confusingly,
that acronyms which form pronounceable words only have the first letter >>>>capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, under their >>>>policy, be written as 'Raf'.
"RAF" does not form a pronounceable word.
Of course it does. It sounds like "faff" with an 'r' - "raff".
Likewise gaff, laff, naff, taff.
Surely it's obvious that they mean it forms one in actual use,
not just that it consists of letters that could form one.
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your comments.
Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form pronounceable
words only have the first letter capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say "raf", but
just because they don't seems to invalidate the argument in your tiny
mind, and you make up some non-proven rubbish about what's actually used.
The whole argument is ridiculous, both from the Bbc and from you.
NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa.
Not to do so just introduces idiotic inconsistencies.
NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa.
On 02/10/2025 23:49, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your
comments. Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form
pronounceable words only have the first letter capitalised, so NASA
becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say "raf",
but just because they don't seems to invalidate the argument in
your tiny mind, and you make up some non-proven rubbish about
what's actually used. The whole argument is ridiculous, both from
the Bbc and from you. NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa.
Not to do so just introduces idiotic inconsistencies.
I have never seen "NASA" written as "Nasa". Also not heard it
pronounced as "N A S A"
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:19:44 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/10/2025 23:49, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your
comments. Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form
pronounceable words only have the first letter capitalised, so NASA
becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say "raf",
but just because they don't seems to invalidate the argument in
your tiny mind, and you make up some non-proven rubbish about
what's actually used. The whole argument is ridiculous, both from
the Bbc and from you. NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa.
Not to do so just introduces idiotic inconsistencies.
I have never seen "NASA" written as "Nasa". Also not heard it
pronounced as "N A S A"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/grammar-spelling-punctuation#:~:text=Where%20you%20would%20normally%20say,Nasa
The Telegraph's response:
"The capitalised proper noun use is a Telegraph style point.
All acronyms that are said as a word, rather than letters, are written
in sentence case.
This is the reason that NATO is written as Nato. The same goes for organisations such as BAFTA as Bafta, etc."
On 03/10/2025 10:10, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:19:44 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/10/2025 23:49, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your
comments. Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form
pronounceable words only have the first letter capitalised, so
NASA becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say "raf",
but just because they don't seems to invalidate the argument in
your tiny mind, and you make up some non-proven rubbish about
what's actually used. The whole argument is ridiculous, both from
the Bbc and from you. NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa.
Not to do so just introduces idiotic inconsistencies.
I have never seen "NASA" written as "Nasa". Also not heard it
pronounced as "N A S A"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/grammar-spelling-punctuation#:~:text=Where%20you%20would%20normally%20say,Nasa
The Telegraph's response:
"The capitalised proper noun use is a Telegraph style point.
All acronyms that are said as a word, rather than letters, are
written in sentence case.
This is the reason that NATO is written as Nato. The same goes for organisations such as BAFTA as Bafta, etc."This is a pointless argument, as illustrated by a quick search for
Telegraph articles about NASA. They commonly use *both* NASA and
Nasa. A rudimentary knowledge of English grammar shows why:
NASA when used as a noun, e.g. "Trump would like to replace NASA with
Space X".
Nasa when used as an adjective, e.g. "the Nasa space probe has
stopped sending signals".
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:22:01 +0100
MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
On 03/10/2025 10:10, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:19:44 +0100This is a pointless argument, as illustrated by a quick search for >>Telegraph articles about NASA. They commonly use both NASA and
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/10/2025 23:49, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your >>>>>comments. Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form >>>>>pronounceable words only have the first letter capitalised, so
NASA becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say "raf", >>>>>but just because they don't seems to invalidate the argument in
your tiny mind, and you make up some non-proven rubbish about
what's actually used. The whole argument is ridiculous, both from
the Bbc and from you. NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa. >>>>>Not to do so just introduces idiotic inconsistencies.
I have never seen "NASA" written as "Nasa". Also not heard it >>>>pronounced as "N A S A"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/grammar-spelling-punctuation#:~:text=Where%20you%20would%20normally%20say,Nasa
The Telegraph's response:
"The capitalised proper noun use is a Telegraph style point.
All acronyms that are said as a word, rather than letters, are
written in sentence case.
This is the reason that NATO is written as Nato. The same goes for >>>organisations such as BAFTA as Bafta, etc."
Nasa. A rudimentary knowledge of English grammar shows why:
NASA when used as a noun, e.g. "Trump would like to replace NASA with
Space X".
Nasa when used as an adjective, e.g. "the Nasa space probe has
stopped sending signals".
So they are ignoring their own Style Guide, which makes no such
distinction.
I still see no reason to use 'Nasa', which is not how NASA spell it.
On 03/10/2025 in message <10boaut$1mokm$1@dont-email.me> Davey wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:22:01 +0100
MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
On 03/10/2025 10:10, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:19:44 +0100This is a pointless argument, as illustrated by a quick search for >>Telegraph articles about NASA. They commonly use both NASA and
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/10/2025 23:49, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your >>>>>comments. Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form >>>>>pronounceable words only have the first letter capitalised, so
NASA becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say
"raf", but just because they don't seems to invalidate the
argument in your tiny mind, and you make up some non-proven
rubbish about what's actually used. The whole argument is >>>>>ridiculous, both from the Bbc and from you. NASA should be
written as such, not as Nasa. Not to do so just introduces
idiotic inconsistencies.
I have never seen "NASA" written as "Nasa". Also not heard it >>>>pronounced as "N A S A"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/grammar-spelling-punctuation#:~:text=Where%20you%20would%20normally%20say,Nasa
The Telegraph's response:
"The capitalised proper noun use is a Telegraph style point.
All acronyms that are said as a word, rather than letters, are
written in sentence case.
This is the reason that NATO is written as Nato. The same goes for >>>organisations such as BAFTA as Bafta, etc."
Nasa. A rudimentary knowledge of English grammar shows why:
NASA when used as a noun, e.g. "Trump would like to replace NASA
with Space X".
Nasa when used as an adjective, e.g. "the Nasa space probe has
stopped sending signals".
So they are ignoring their own Style Guide, which makes no such >distinction.
I still see no reason to use 'Nasa', which is not how NASA spell it.
I complained to the BBC once that they had confused aborigine with Aborigine, they upheld my complaint.
It should be N.A.S.A but educational standards nowadays seem to preclude >that.
In article <xn0pbljd89p5brn00a@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It should be N.A.S.A but educational standards nowadays seem to preclude
that.
Modern education tends not to focus on such trivial matters of preference.
-- Richard
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <xn0pbljd89p5brn00a@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It should be N.A.S.A but educational standards nowadays seem to preclude >>> that.
Modern education tends not to focus on such trivial matters of preference. >>
-- Richard
The civil service issued its own style guide around 50 years ago. That deprecated full stops after each letter of an abbreviation. The guide
sought to remove things that added nothing to what was being communicated. That could equally apply to NASA, Nasa or nasa.
On 03/10/2025 18:13, Tweed wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <xn0pbljd89p5brn00a@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It should be N.A.S.A but educational standards nowadays seem to
preclude that.
Modern education tends not to focus on such trivial matters of
preference.
-- Richard
The civil service issued its own style guide around 50 years ago.
That deprecated full stops after each letter of an abbreviation.
The guide sought to remove things that added nothing to what was
being communicated. That could equally apply to NASA, Nasa or nasa.
There was an electronics magazine in the 1970s and 80s whose house
style was to write all initialisms and acronyms (the latter being pronounceable "words") as lower-case letters separated by full stops:
r.a.d.a.r.
e.p.r.o.m.
It made it bloody difficult to read their articles, especially as
sometimes the acronym would break over a line:
r.a.d.
a.r.
My preference is for upper-case with no full stops for organisations
WHO, UNESO, NASA and for initialisms which are not pronounceable PC,
SD card, AFAIK; and lower-case for acronyms which have entered the
English language as words in their own right: radar, sonar.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 22:38:35 +0100
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 03/10/2025 18:13, Tweed wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <xn0pbljd89p5brn00a@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It should be N.A.S.A but educational standards nowadays seem to >>>>>preclude that.
Modern education tends not to focus on such trivial matters of >>>>preference.
-- Richard
The civil service issued its own style guide around 50 years ago.
That deprecated full stops after each letter of an abbreviation.
The guide sought to remove things that added nothing to what was
being communicated. That could equally apply to NASA, Nasa or nasa.
There was an electronics magazine in the 1970s and 80s whose house
style was to write all initialisms and acronyms (the latter being >>pronounceable "words") as lower-case letters separated by full stops:
r.a.d.a.r.
e.p.r.o.m.
It made it bloody difficult to read their articles, especially as
sometimes the acronym would break over a line:
r.a.d.
a.r.
My preference is for upper-case with no full stops for organisations
WHO, UNESO, NASA and for initialisms which are not pronounceable PC,
SD card, AFAIK; and lower-case for acronyms which have entered the
English language as words in their own right: radar, sonar.
That sounds sensible and logical to me.
On 04/10/2025 in message <10bqjm6$2begl$1@dont-email.me> Davey wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 22:38:35 +0100
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 03/10/2025 18:13, Tweed wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <xn0pbljd89p5brn00a@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It should be N.A.S.A but educational standards nowadays seem to >>>>>preclude that.
Modern education tends not to focus on such trivial matters of >>>>preference.
-- Richard
The civil service issued its own style guide around 50 years ago.
That deprecated full stops after each letter of an abbreviation.
The guide sought to remove things that added nothing to what was
being communicated. That could equally apply to NASA, Nasa or nasa.
There was an electronics magazine in the 1970s and 80s whose house
style was to write all initialisms and acronyms (the latter being >>pronounceable "words") as lower-case letters separated by full
stops:
r.a.d.a.r.
e.p.r.o.m.
It made it bloody difficult to read their articles, especially as >>sometimes the acronym would break over a line:
r.a.d.
a.r.
My preference is for upper-case with no full stops for organisations
WHO, UNESO, NASA and for initialisms which are not pronounceable PC,
SD card, AFAIK; and lower-case for acronyms which have entered the >>English language as words in their own right: radar, sonar.
That sounds sensible and logical to me.
Yes it does so no way it will be adopted :-)
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 15:31:34 -0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <slrn10dt0cj.1smc.abuse@news.pr.network>,
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse2025@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
This states, most confusingly,
that acronyms which form pronounceable words only have the first >>>>letter capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa.
It makes no sense to me. I suggested that the RAF should, under
their policy, be written as 'Raf'.
"RAF" does not form a pronounceable word.
Of course it does. It sounds like "faff" with an 'r' - "raff".
Likewise gaff, laff, naff, taff.
Surely it's obvious that they mean it forms one in actual use,
not just that it consists of letters that could form one.
I see you are trying to move the goalposts to 'justify' your comments.
Where does it state that in this quote:
"This states, most confusingly, that acronyms which form pronounceable
words only have the first letter capitalised, so NASA becomes Nasa."
It's not obvious at all, and people could quite happily say "raf", but
just because they don't seems to invalidate the argument in your tiny
mind, and you make up some non-proven rubbish about what's actually
used. The whole argument is ridiculous, both from the Bbc and from
you. NASA should be written as such, not as Nasa.
Not to do so just introduces idiotic inconsistencies.