On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:52:12 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >In ><cae1xxdgv26sbufjf9juia7ycx2q35u+sdm_8vxscfpgc75w...@mail.gmail.com>, >on 09/18/2012 > at 04:52 PM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said: > >>My reasons for preferring 'PrOp' are three: 1) it is innocuously >>pronounceable; 2) it is devoid of the vaguely scatological >>connotations of its competitors; and 3) it is less clumsy than >>they. > >Why not ProOps?
There are now several things that I recognize as short forms of Principles of Operation. I continue to use the one that I first learned decades ago. The problem with proposing a new one is that, if it is adopted, it becomes an additional one, not a replacement. So far, I do not find any of the proposed replacements to be entirely satisfactory. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
