I beg to differ. I say write "roughwing." Then most everybody knows
what you mean. I can type "roughwing" faster than I can type NORW or
whatever it is, even discounting the time it takes to try to remember the
damn code (time which both writer and reader must invest).

Gene Hunn.

On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Michael Price wrote:

> Hi Tweeters,
>
> Responding to folks who have shown distaste for substitutive
> 4-letter...sorry, four-letter codes.
>
> First, I can sure distinguish by the BINA's in the posts who has to write
> out these sometimes-long colloquial names out more than a few times a week,
> and who doesn't. After the 4,317th time you've written out Northern
> Rough-winged Swallow (NRWS) or Greater White-fronted Goose(GWFG), your
> fingers will divorce you if you and go to Montana if you don't start using code.
>
> How often would you like to *have* to say in conversation your friend's
> complete name every you mentioned it?: "Well, John Frances Brian Foxworthy,
> I think the Yankees are in for a good year no matter whether George
> Frederick Butterworth Steinbrenner trades Joseph Guicciardini Albertoni
> diMaggio for Michael Patrick Claude Mantle and a couple of minor leaguers
> whose names, thank god, haven't been announced."
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> Secondly, and more important, I feel like the narrator in the Certs
> breath-mint commercial: Stop! You're *both* right...!
>
> In the audio-checklist that instigated this thread, it was obviously a post
> whic started off as a private post and the, what the heck, there's so much
> good info here, let's make it public. The intention, clearly, was to perform
> a public service; the editing, however, which would have made the birds'
> identities clear by identifying which code stood for which species, was not
> performed, thus the ensuing confusion of those unfamiliar with that usage.
>
> It is the simplest solution to use both *if you want to*, but the basic rule
> is one of the simplest courtesy: *invariably* use the full name first and
> identify the code with it--hence, "...at least 5 Northern Rough-winged
> Swallows (NRWS) were over the Iona Settling Ponds, etc." and then, *if you
> want*, subsequently refer to that species in the post using the code from
> that point. I'm sure that would make it easier to follow, unless you're
> utterly opposed to code usage on some kind of ideological basis. Or simply
> don't like it, and that ends the issue right there for you, period, end of
> discussion.
>
> The use of code, I'd like to stress, is neither a moral issue nor a case of
> imposition by arrogant elitists intent on obfuscation. It is simply a way of
> making things easier for people who have to use birds' names many, many,
> *many* times over. Code is simply and inarguably more efficient (see second
> paragraph). The issue of code in public posts has a simple solution, as
> above, and its use is a personal decision.
>
> Neil J.Ferguson (NJFE) says:
>
> (snip)
> >(5) Any ambiguities are taken care of as special cases. For example
> > Black-throated Green Warbler and Black-throated Gray Warbler
> > would both be BTGW. In such a case, I believe that the most
> > common one is abbreviated according to the above rules, then the
> > other is abbreviated arbitrarily. Comments ?
>
> Intuitively, why not key on the significant consonant?
>
> As in (examples only--let me stress that I don't know if these are the
> *real* codes):
>
> Black-throated Green Warbler--BTNW
> Black-throated Gray Warbler--BTYW
> Black-throated Blue Warbler--BTBW
>
> Bank Swallow--BKSW
> Barn Swallow--BNSW
>
> Northern Shoveler--NOSV (instead of its current NOSL)
> Northern Shrike--NOSK (instead of its current NOSH, which could be either)
>
> Etc., etc.
>
> >Now, how does one abbreviate Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker?
>
> Piece of cake: BTWO.
> Except that they've changed it to Black-backed Woodpecker BBWO.
>
> How about abbreviating 'Smew'? ;-)
>
>
> Michael Price
> Vancouver BC Canada
> michael_price at mindlink.bc.ca
>
>