What on earth does IMO mean?

[Denniz]

... and who the heck is Monty?

link
+10char

 

[MoonBase]

Of course. That is implied.

The problem with implication is the need for the reader to properly infer what it was that was being implied.

In a print medium where many a reader and/or writer are not 100% fluent in the language being used, and especially when the language is as flexible and mutable a one as english, that need can often result in meanings being missed entirely.

Thus, on occasion, it can be quite useful for a writer to be explicit, thus removing the need for the reader to correctly infer the details. Add to this the occasional instance of certain people mistaking their opinions for facts, and the occasional use of "in my opinion" could be seen to have nothing to do with any social stigma against assertiveness, and much more to do with simply being clear.

Also,

 

[drkodos]

I did, don't you worry.

Good, now I can finally get some rest.

 

[Thunderfall]

In the Civ4 War Academy we have a longer list of commonly used acronyms:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/reference/acronyms.php

I probably should add "Monty" to the list too.

 

[Willowmound]

Good, now I can finally get some rest.

heh heh...

 

[Willowmound]

The problem with implication is the need for the reader to properly infer what it was that was being implied.

In a print medium where many a reader and/or writer are not 100% fluent in the language being used, and especially when the language is as flexible and mutable a one as english, that need can often result in meanings being missed entirely.

Thus, on occasion, it can be quite useful for a writer to be explicit, thus removing the need for the reader to correctly infer the details. Add to this the occasional instance of certain people mistaking their opinions for facts, and the occasional use of "in my opinion" could be seen to have nothing to do with any social stigma against assertiveness, and much more to do with simply being clear.

Also,

That entire post was your opinion. Obviously it was. Yet, nowhere did you insert an 'IMO'. If you had, would that have made the post any better? Clearer? No.

Consider this: How often do you see professional writers use the phrase, 'in my opinion'?

Exactly. And that's precisely how often it need be used. Which is to say, rarely.

 

[drkodos]

In my never humble opinion, this thread has RIC and need be STOT or CC.

 

[MoonBase]

That entire post was your opinion. Obviously it was. Yet, nowhere did you insert an 'IMO'. If you had, would that have made the post any better? Clearer? No.

Because it wasn't one of those times, obviously.

If my statement had included a whole set of numbers and technical details designed to elucidate some aspect of fact, or was injected into the middle of a discussion rife with emotionally-laced invective and repeated statements along the lines of "this is fact!", then I may well have stuck an IMO at the end of my opinion to make it clear that I was not getting into the peripheral genital-measuring contest or to make clear that I did not believe my opinion to be magically transformed into fact by numerical support.

Consider this: How often do you see professional writers use the phrase, 'in my opinion'?

Every once in a while. In political circles, almost never. In scientific circles, quite a bit more often.

But averaged out, I wouldn't say "a lot!". I might even go ahead and agree that it could be called "rarely".


Which, you might want to note, is different than "never", and has nothing to do with the phrase being indicative of any societal pressures against assertiveness.

Like I said, sometimes it's more important to be explicit with one's meaning rather than trusting implication to get it across.

Sometimes.

 

[drkodos]

Because it wasn't one of those times, obviously.

If my statement had included a whole set of numbers and technical details designed to elucidate some aspect of fact, or was injected into the middle of a discussion rife with emotionally-laced invective and repeated statements along the lines of "this is fact!", then I may well have stuck an IMO at the end of my opinion to make it clear that I was not getting into the peripheral genital-measuring contest or to make clear that I did not believe my opinion to be magically transformed into fact by numerical support.




Every once in a while. In political circles, almost never. In scientific circles, quite a bit more often.

But averaged out, I wouldn't say "a lot!". I might even go ahead and agree that it could be called "rarely".


Which, you might want to note, is different than "never", and has nothing to do with the phrase being indicative of any societal pressures against assertiveness.

Like I said, sometimes it's more important to be explicit with one's meaning rather than trusting implication to get it across.

Sometimes.

As a professional rhetorician I tell you it is a passive voice, and has no place in real writing. And it has even less place in scientific writing. It is a shameful waste of space, and is mainly a tool in the dominion of people that are afraid of strong opinions so they employ it in the belief that is will "soften the blow" they are about to passively deliver.

Shameful.

 

[Willowmound]

I agree with drkodos. To 'soften the blow' is exactly how the 'IMO' tag is usually used.

But then, if everyone could write, I wouldn't have a job.

You people just keep at it.

 

[Arlborn]

Monty LOL!

Montezuma OMG

 

[gdgrimm]

As a professional rhetorician I tell you it is a passive voice, and has no place in real writing. And it has even less place in scientific writing. It is a shameful waste of space, and is mainly a tool in the dominion of people that are afraid of strong opinions so they employ it in the belief that is will "soften the blow" they are about to passively deliver.

Shameful.

Well, often I'll use "IMO" when I'm stating something that I believe is true, but don't have irrefutable proof of.

For example.....

If I'm new to the game, and have workers on auto, I might notice that the cities that have farms around them are growing faster than the cities that don't have farms. This might lead me to say something like "IMO, farms help cities grow faster". The IMO indicates that I'm really not in a position to proof it as a fact, but I think it is.

On the other hand, I might be able to cite references in the manual that discuss farming, or I may be able to describe how I manually had a worker build a farm and noticed an increase in food production in the city screen, or some other experiment I ran. In that case, I'd say something like "Farms help cities grow faster". It's a fact that I have substantial evidence to back up.

Anyway, I think the IMO acronym does have uses beyond the PC-use you mention.

 

[MoonBase]

As a professional rhetorician I tell you it is a passive voice, and has no place in real writing. And it has even less place in scientific writing.

I've read it in numerous review articles and doctoral dissertations, where it is most often used to clearly delineate the opinion of the author from the facts preceeding it.

That may bother you from a rhetorical perspective, but it is the accepted practice none the less.

I've rarely seen it contribute to an overall passive voice while in use by a professional, as well, though I have to agree that it is, by itself, in the passive voice.

It is a shameful waste of space, and is mainly a tool in the dominion of people that are afraid of strong opinions so they employ it in the belief that is will "soften the blow" they are about to passively deliver.

Shameful.

Okey dokey then. I guess I just missed the vast conspiracy of people out there looking to destroy assertive society via the use language as a means of conveying tone.

Though I'm pretty sure that I did say it was used to soften tone, as well as for clarity...

But then, if everyone could write, I wouldn't have a job.

Same here.

I'm also able to use "In My Opinion" without it destroying my ability to be assertive, without it meaning that I'm out to soften any insult I may be putting forward, and without it being a crass denunciation of all that proper, decent society should stand for.

 

[Ray Patterson]

IMHO, I think IMO is probably unnecessary. Where as IMHO may be more useful. But, that's just my humble opinion.

Yeah, I would state it exactly the other way around. IMO reflects two things:

1) that what follows is a (crucial) point you are trying to make
2) that you are aware people disagree with it

IMHO is confusing. Do you mean that the topic is sensitive and that you're not trying to hurt someone's feelings? Do you indeed mean someone else's judgement is probably better than yours? Or are you simply being sarcastic? It's just too ambigious IMO.

 

[PraetorianSteve]

This topic, IMO, has almost been as fascinating as one of those "Why isn't Hitler in the game" threads we just couldn't get enough of once.

 

[MoonBase]

This topic, IMO, has almost been as fascinating as one of those "Why isn't Hitler in the game" threads we just couldn't get enough of once.

Pfft. You're just bitter because we're not discussing proper declention.

 

[zyphyr]

This topic, IMO, has almost been as fascinating as one of those "Why isn't Hitler in the game" threads we just couldn't get enough of once.

Coming next week, a 3000 post discussion of the merits of IIRC.

 

[Sid the Lucid]

Hmmm. IIRC is most often immediately followed by woefully inaccurate data. In many instances it can safely be replaced by "And now here's a load of crap...".

 

[Willowmound]

Hmmm. IIRC is most often immediately followed by woefully inaccurate data. In many instances it can safely be replaced by "And now here's a load of crap...".

...Or by its acronym, ANHALOC.

 

[Shigga]

Coming next week, a 3000 post discussion of the merits of IIRC.

naah, IIRC a debate about rofl vs rotfl is scheduled for next week.