Re: Twitchy
- From: Jasper Janssen <jasper.janssen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:12:45 +0200
On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:03:12 +0100, chris+news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chris
Suslowicz) wrote:
In article <g3e3449174iiorherc1evs4g3bn9tj2e8a@xxxxxxx>,
Jasper Janssen <jasper.janssen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:06:04 +0100, chris+news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chris
Suslowicz) wrote:
In article <g1k1fn$9kt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Mike Andrews" <mikea@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Roger. Wilco. Out."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Department of redundancy department on line two.
Roger = "I hear you.", Wilco = "I'll do it, too.", Out = "HAND".
Where's the redundancy?
Not wishing to wade through over a century worth of signal procedure books,
it boils down to "never use two words where one will do", commercially
because time is money, militarily because "The enemy is listening".
The current (well, current-ish) meanings (1970) are:
Roger - Message received, satisfactorily. OR
- I have received your last transmission satisfactorily.
Wilco - Message received, understood, and will be complied with.
Out - This is the end of my transmission. No reply is expected.
Over - This is the end of my transmission, a reply or acknowledgement
is required. Go ahead and transmit.
There are a bunch of others. I have no intention of retyping Appendix D.
Wilco implies Roger, Out implies Over.
Fair enough. So the Roger part is redundant -- but that still doesn't make
the Out redundant as such, though, does it? "Over and Out" is, but that's
not present here.
Jasper
.
- References:
- Re: Twitchy
- From: Chris Suslowicz
- Re: Twitchy
- Prev by Date: Re: Scottish, uhm... uuh... what should we call this?
- Next by Date: Re: grumblesmurf
- Previous by thread: Re: Twitchy
- Next by thread: Re: Twitchy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
