At 08:53 PM 6/16/2008, Mark Beckwith wrote:
>WC1M said:
>
> > (operating arrangements involving other individuals,
> > DX-alerting nets, packet, Internet, etc)
> >
> > The phrase in parenthesis defines the terms ...
> > and it doesn't include anything like local Skimmer.
>
>
>Dick, I believe the phrase does include things "like local Skimmer" and the
>"etc" drives it home. To me the definition clearly includes Skimmer.
Why would et cetera drive anything home? From Strunk & White's The
Elements of Styles:
V. WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS COMMONLY MISUSED
"Etc. Not to be used of persons. Equivalent to and the rest, and so
forth, and hence not to be used if one of these would be
insufficient, that is, if the reader would be left in doubt as to any
important particulars. Least open to objection when it represents the
last terms of a list already given in full, or immaterial words at
the end of a quotation.
At the end of a list introduced by such as, for example, or any
similar expression, etc. is incorrect."
Since there has been an over abundance of debate, it seems clear that
readers are left in doubt about at least one important particular.
Presuming the competence of those who crafted the rule, their choice
to use etc. indicates that the list has been specified in its entirety.
In such circumstances it would seem the correct meaning of the rule
needs to be officially clarified, not just debated ad infinitum.
73,
Mike K1MK
Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@alum.mit.edu
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|