Date:         Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:42:09 -0500
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: engineering nightmares vehicles was: cruise control
              speedometer sensor
Comments: To: Tim Demarest <tim.demarest@POBOX.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <5.2.0.9.2.20041027111609.02163eb0@mail-hub.optonline.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:27 10/27/2004, Tim Demarest wrote:
>Hah! I always go with IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion)... since I believe in
>truth in advertising, and I've found that IMHO is almost *always* followed
>by an arrogant statement.

I was taught long ago that that acronym is supposed to code for the
sender's self-claim to expertise on the subject:
IMHO - I have no special quals
IMO - I am knowledgeable or expert in the subject
IMNSHO (..Not So Humble...) - I am an authority on the subject

I admit to occasionally misusing the last one as in intensified form of IMO
-- I am in fact an authority on nothing at all [except my own opinions] so
should never ever use it instead of maybe once every year or two.  But IMHO
is a specific disclaimer of expertise.

d
"Five is Right Out!"


--
David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage," '85 GL "Poor Relation"