what can I do? ***stop engaging in such pretense. Acronyms are for when everyone agrees on what it stands for, otherwise YGMSOYSOTSTYB4. In such a case, BOHICA.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, Kevin I don't understand what you don't understand > see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis > > For technology and management SWOT is as clear as AIDS for physician > To call SWOT ridiculous is a bit strange, mo chara! > > Which acronym finders do not decode MY acronyms? Non capisco! > > I regret that you will not read my paper, however if SWOT is a scare word > for you, what can I do? > > Peter > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Right, Kevin! The definition of SWOT is clearly given in the first >>> paragraph >>> of the paper- have you read it? >>> >> ***Nope. I stopped short at undefined acronyms and the risk of >> downloading the latest virus. >> >> >> >>> In management SWOT is a standard procedure a must. >>> >> ***Yup. standard procedure, and typical nonsense associated with as-yet >> undefined acronyms. >> >> >> >> >>> Each field of knowledge has its specific jargon, including >>> abbreviations, acronyms. >>> >> ***And yet, you're running into those who don't know your supposed >> jargon, so you have no business using it. >> >> >> >>> English is poly-semantic, the words have many meanings >>> >> ***But Jargons and Acronyms are Mono-Symantic:BJAAAMS. GAC. GWTP. >> >>> >>> BTW, there are fine acronym- finders on the web. >>> >> ***And the few I tried did not decode your acronyms. Look how far down >> in this discussion we have gone without you defining your ridiculous >> acronym. Why should I read your paper? >> >> >> >>> >>> I have studied web-search for many years, from the old days when it was >>> based on knowing the best sources and the fastest algorithms up to today >>> when it's just the art of getting rid of the nasty intruding ads. >>> >> ***Nice to know. And yet, after all that bullshit, you still didn't >> define your acronym. WSL? GWTP? FYATHYRIO. >> >> >> >> >>> NALOPKT, >>> Peter.. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There once was a reason for acronyms: lack of memory and time and >>>> space. But your computer has plenty of memory, it takes only a couple of >>>> seconds to push out the definition of SWOT, and there's plenty of space. >>>> WTFPA? WNJPOTOWRTTFA? TANSTAAFL. GWTP. WSL? W<UNLMA???? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear friends, >>>>> >>>>> I have just published; >>>>> >>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html >>>>> >>>>> It is mainly about T of SWOT; many of the readers (me included) will >>>>> not like everything I say here. >>>>> But reality will accept it, how is possible to respect ALL the good >>>>> rules in a very VUCA situation? >>>>> Can you educate your children without fairy tales? >>>>> >>>>> Inventors have to think realistically, act pragmatically and >>>>> communicate diplomatically. Let's try to understand what does this mean in >>>>> this case.. >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>>> Cluj, Romania >>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
