Is RCN Outsourced to India or Something??



N

NYC XYZ

Guest
I think it's atrocious what the nyt is doing, AND I HATE "APOSTROPHE-S"
FOR "JONES'" -- AS IN, "JONES'S" [SIC, SIC, SIC!]!!!


bryanska wrote:
> > "Use of plurals is another area of confusion to authors and editors.
> > As with everything, Chicago/Turabian style takes precedence in this
> > project. One area of specific confusion when it comes to computer
> > terms is with acronyms. Most people mistakenly add an apostrophe and
> > letter 's' to make an acronym plural. The major proponent of this
> > incorrect method is 'The New York Times,' even though all publishing
> > houses and computer magazines agree that it is wrong."
> >
> > Rephrasing this in non-perjorative terms:
> > The New York Times would say NG's.
> > Most people would say NG's
> > Many/Most/All other publishers would say NGs.
> > To me, this says either can be justified.

>
> The quote directly says all publishing houses believe the practice to
> be wrong. And the author admits and believes the practice to be
> incorrect, too. And "most people" make the mistake.
>
> I gotta stand my ground here. Incorrect usage.
 
M

Mike Kruger

Guest
"bryanska" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>> "Use of plurals is another area of confusion to authors and editors.
>> As with everything, Chicago/Turabian style takes precedence in this
>> project. One area of specific confusion when it comes to computer
>> terms is with acronyms. Most people mistakenly add an apostrophe and
>> letter 's' to make an acronym plural. The major proponent of this
>> incorrect method is 'The New York Times,' even though all publishing
>> houses and computer magazines agree that it is wrong."
>>
>> Rephrasing this in non-perjorative terms:
>> The New York Times would say NG's.
>> Most people would say NG's
>> Many/Most/All other publishers would say NGs.
>> To me, this says either can be justified.

>
> The quote directly says all publishing houses believe the practice to
> be wrong. And the author admits and believes the practice to be
> incorrect, too. And "most people" make the mistake.
>
> I gotta stand my ground here. Incorrect usage.
>

You can think it's incorrect if you want to. I don't intend to change,
personally. I think it's much clearer and more consistent to have

A's
4's
Ph.D.'s
NG's
SOB's (or S.O.B.'s)

According to the sources I cited, I admittedly seem to be in a minority.
But so long as I have one reputable source in my corner (the New York Times)
I don't plan to change.

I also found this "reference", but I don't have the actual Webster's Third
handy and so I cannot vouch for this source's accuracy.

>Webster's Third New International Dictionary of
>the English Language, Unabridged (but publised in America by Americans)
>says:
>
> 15.1 nouns formed from abbreviations.
>
> Abbreviations formed by literation and used as nouns add either
> appostrophe and -s or more often just -s.
>
>and they then go on to show some examples with both alternates:
>
> GI's
> GI --{
> GIs
>
> G.I.'s
> G.I. --{
> G.I.s
>
> IQ's
> IQ --{
> IQs
>
> Ph.D.'s
> Ph.D. --{
> Ph.D.s
 
Mike Kruger writes:

>>> There's an extensive discussion of this topic (including
>>> indications that the rule can be either NGs or NG's) at


http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=499296

>> Can you point out where it specifically says this? I can't find
>> anything except the guidance that acronyms are pluralized with an
>> "s", and only period-separated acronyms (like P.H.D.) are
>> pluralized with an apostrophied "s".


P.H.D is not an acronym but some form of abbreviation. I see no rules
any where for that form, especially when there is an acronym for it.

> Quoting from the above page:


> "Use of plurals is another area of confusion to authors and editors.
> As with everything, Chicago/Tribune style takes precedence in this
> project. One area of specific confusion when it comes to computer
> terms is with acronyms. Most people mistakenly add an apostrophe and
> letter 's' to make an acronym plural. The major proponent of this
> incorrect method is 'The New York Times,' even though all publishing
> houses and computer magazines agree that it is wrong."


The reason for the apostrophe is that the "s" is not part of the
acronym and want some sort of separation from it. It is for this
reason that it is used.

To make up for that, acronyms that are in themselves plurals don't get
spared that extension as in RPM, which most often is written RPM's or
RPMs. That IS incorrect. I prefer the apostrophe for the reason I
mentioned.

> Rephrasing this in non-perjorative terms:
> The New York Times would say NG's.
> Most people would say NG's
> Many/Most/All other publishers would say NGs.
> To me, this says either can be justified.


I'll stick by NG's because it makes sense to me, as does PhD's or
BVD's.

Jobst Brandt
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> As you were!
>
> Top-posting looks better sometimes, and makes more logical sense when
> all you have for a response is a few lines at most. Also, some folks
> don't want to scroll all the way down in order to read the response,
> especially if they've been following the conversation all along and/or
> the post which is being replied to is a long one.
>
>
> Dismissed!


No, there is no excuse for top posting. If only a few lines are involved,
then you need only quote a few lines from the previous message. However, it
you are responding to the previous message in toto, then the entire previous
message must be quoted. There is no other way.

You are confusing Usenet with email. That is because you have not recognized
that Usenet relates to a group and not to a single individual. Since a group
is involved, you must provide as much information as possible in a logical
manner in each and every posting so that they will understand what is being
said. I show consideration for the group by insisting on top posting. You
show contempt for the group by posting otherwise.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Top posting is never fine. It is an abomination and done only by thorough
>> going idiots like yourself. Try to get up to speed why don't you?
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Mike Kruger writes:
>
>>>> There's an extensive discussion of this topic (including
>>>> indications that the rule can be either NGs or NG's) at

>
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=499296
>
>>> Can you point out where it specifically says this? I can't find
>>> anything except the guidance that acronyms are pluralized with an
>>> "s", and only period-separated acronyms (like P.H.D.) are
>>> pluralized with an apostrophied "s".

>
> P.H.D is not an acronym but some form of abbreviation. I see no rules
> any where for that form, especially when there is an acronym for it.
>
>> Quoting from the above page:

>
>> "Use of plurals is another area of confusion to authors and editors.
>> As with everything, Chicago/Tribune style takes precedence in this
>> project. One area of specific confusion when it comes to computer
>> terms is with acronyms. Most people mistakenly add an apostrophe and
>> letter 's' to make an acronym plural. The major proponent of this
>> incorrect method is 'The New York Times,' even though all publishing
>> houses and computer magazines agree that it is wrong."

>
> The reason for the apostrophe is that the "s" is not part of the
> acronym and want some sort of separation from it. It is for this
> reason that it is used.
>
> To make up for that, acronyms that are in themselves plurals don't get
> spared that extension as in RPM, which most often is written RPM's or
> RPMs. That IS incorrect. I prefer the apostrophe for the reason I
> mentioned.
>
>> Rephrasing this in non-perjorative terms:
>> The New York Times would say NG's.
>> Most people would say NG's
>> Many/Most/All other publishers would say NGs.
>> To me, this says either can be justified.

>
> I'll stick by NG's because it makes sense to me, as does PhD's or
> BVD's.
>
> Jobst Brandt


Jobst and Mike are both correct anyone who says otherwise is crazy as a hoot
owl. Hells Bells, you can plainly see what looks right and what doesn't look
right. The NY Times (no friend of mine) is right and anyone who says
differently is wrong.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> wrote:

>According to the sources I cited, I admittedly seem to be in a minority.
>But so long as I have one reputable source in my corner (the New York Times)
>I don't plan to change.


I don't get it... you mention you have a reputable source, and then
you mention the New York Times. I don't get the connection...

;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
B

Bill Baka

Guest
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>According to the sources I cited, I admittedly seem to be in a minority.
>>But so long as I have one reputable source in my corner (the New York Times)
>>I don't plan to change.

>
>
> I don't get it... you mention you have a reputable source, and then
> you mention the New York Times. I don't get the connection...
>
> ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame


Like New York times is reliable. Even in California I know better. A
recent poll showed that of Wall Street Journal, NYT, and several others
in NY, the Times was about 4th or 5th.
Bill Baka
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I think it's atrocious what the nyt is doing, AND I HATE "APOSTROPHE-S"
> FOR "JONES'" -- AS IN, "JONES'S" [SIC, SIC, SIC!]!!!



What! That's perfectly acceptable: "That's the Jones's house" The exception,
I believe, is Jesus', which has some sort of historical root.

What drives me nuts is "it's" for "its".

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Claire Petersky wrote:

> What! That's perfectly acceptable: "That's the Jones's house"


It's been a while, but if it really sank in I was taught that for a
single trailing 's' you'd just leave it as an apostrophe on its own, so
while my bike is Pete's bike, my other half's is Roos' bike.

> The exception,
> I believe, is Jesus', which has some sort of historical root.


No, and Jesus is still quite a common name in many places, he's not a
singular figure with a special exception.

> What drives me nuts is "it's" for "its".


It's something annoying, but it's not quite as common, or annoying, as
plurals becoming "plural's"... Though of course in some languages that
is the /correct/ usage.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Claire Petersky wrote:
>
>
>
> What! That's perfectly acceptable: "That's the Jones's house" The exception,
> I believe, is Jesus', which has some sort of historical root.


Now it's acceptable -- even de rigeur -- but it looks redundant,
almost. The old way of doing it was simply with the apostrophe. How
do you pronounce "s's" anyway?

> What drives me nuts is "it's" for "its".


That, too. RCN is very bad in this regard. Like I said, I'm afraid of
subliminally picking up bad habits reading it! But it's annoying to
have to be on-guard leisure-reading.

> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
> Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
> See the books I've set free at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Many, many thanks.
>
> Just seems more logical!
>
> Though sometimes it's hard to decide...can't think of an example right
> now, but I know there have been times, rare as they are, when using an
> apostrophe would have been clearer somehow....



Um, I remember now...like when you want to write the phrase "catching
some z's" (as in, catching up on sleep -- zzzzzz...), you can't really
write "catching some zs," you almost need the apostrophe, actually, to
help make it clear....
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
NYC XYZ wrote:

> Um, I remember now...like when you want to write the phrase "catching
> some z's" (as in, catching up on sleep -- zzzzzz...), you can't really
> write "catching some zs," you almost need the apostrophe, actually, to
> help make it clear....


My built-in (by my English teachers) dislike of misusing apostrophes has
me doing things like Zs, or 'z's (that's quote zed unquote ess, no
apostrophe!) in that sort of case, though I have no idea how correct or
otherwise that'd be.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
P

Paul Turner

Guest
NYC XYZ wrote:

> Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>> What! That's perfectly acceptable: "That's the Jones's house" The
>> exception,
>> I believe, is Jesus', which has some sort of historical root.

>
> Now it's acceptable -- even de rigeur -- but it looks redundant,
> almost. The old way of doing it was simply with the apostrophe. How
> do you pronounce "s's" anyway?
>

It has been de rigeur for a long time. Strunk & White and Fowler both go
with Jones's. It's pronounced the way we actually pronounce it when we
aren't thinking about it. If I say, "I stole Jones's bike," I say Jones's in
two syllables, not one.

--
Paul Turner
 
B

bryanska

Guest
>I'll stick by NG's because it makes sense to me, as does PhD's or BVD's.

"Y'all" also makes sense to a lot of people but it's INCORRECT.

Incorrect usage undermines our English programs and contributes to
generations of kids who can't write a correct resume, proposal, or
business presentation.

Don't cry to anyone if your kid doesn't get a job because of incorrect
spelling.
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]wc.googlegroups.com...
> Redears,
>
> At the risk of suffering a repetitive stress injury, Ed Dolan once
> again pats himself on the back.
>
> Jim McNamara


You do not correctly format which makes more work for me. Therefore, I can't
be bothered any further with you. Either format your posts in the acceptable
manner or get lost.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"bryanska" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >I'll stick by NG's because it makes sense to me, as does PhD's or BVD's.

>
> "Y'all" also makes sense to a lot of people but it's INCORRECT.
>
> Incorrect usage undermines our English programs and contributes to
> generations of kids who can't write a correct resume, proposal, or
> business presentation.
>
> Don't cry to anyone if your kid doesn't get a job because of incorrect
> spelling.


Is "bryanska" Bryan Ball of BROL I wonder?

In any event he is wrong as usual. If something does not look right to the
great Ed Dolan, then there is most likely something wrong with it. English
usage has always been determined by how elites like me use it, not how
dwarfs and midgets like Bryan Ball use it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
L

Little Meow

Guest
Edward Dolan [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Redears,
>>
>> At the risk of suffering a repetitive stress injury, Ed Dolan once
>> again pats himself on the back.
>>
>> Jim McNamara

>
> You do not correctly format which makes more work for me. Therefore, I can't
> be bothered any further with you. Either format your posts in the acceptable
> manner or get lost.
>

This isn't suprising with Outlook Express.
My newsreader has little problem with his formatting, or your
excessively long lines of text.
 
A shy person writes:

>> What! That's perfectly acceptable: "That's the Jones's house" The
>> exception, I believe, is Jesus', which has some sort of historical
>> root.


> Now it's acceptable -- even de rigeur -- but it looks redundant,
> almost. The old way of doing it was simply with the apostrophe.
> How do you pronounce "s's" anyway?


You must mean "de rigueur."

>> What drives me nuts is "it's" for "its".


> That, too. RCN is very bad in this regard. Like I said, I'm afraid
> of subliminally picking up bad habits reading it! But it's annoying
> to have to be on-guard leisure-reading.


While you're quibbling about grammar, the correct usage is "As I said",
and that's valid in all NG's.

Jobst Brandt
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>A shy person writes:

[...]
>> That, too. RCN is very bad in this regard. Like I said, I'm afraid
>> of subliminally picking up bad habits reading it! But it's annoying
>> to have to be on-guard leisure-reading.

>
> While you're quibbling about grammar, the correct usage is "As I said",
> and that's valid in all NG's.
>
> Jobst Brandt


No, it is perfectly acceptable to say "like" instead of "as". It is a
colloquial American usage and is done all the time.

What is not valid is for you to be substituting "A shy person writes:" for
the name of the original poster. Were you born in a barn?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
4
Views
1K
T