Telecon vs. telecom

[AL_n]

Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
and telecom mean exactly the same thing?

If so, which is preferable?

TIA

Al

[Joachim Pense]

Am 30.01.2012 21:24, schrieb AL_n:
> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>

For me, a telecon is a telephone conference, but a telecom is a
telecommunication company.

Joachim

[Lanarcam]

IMO, but who am I, telecom stands for electronic communication
over a long distance whereas telecon is the abbreviation of
tele-conference, conference over a distance. I would say that they
are not synonymous.

[AL_n]

Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
news:4f26fe81$0$6546$426a...@news.free.fr:

Now I'm puzzled; I have read dozens of formal letters containg phrases such
as "further to our telecom" or "regarding your telecom" (both referring to
a telephonic communication).

Then I saw this dictionary definition of "telecon":
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/telecon

Al

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> writes:

> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?

No. "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
"Tele-conference". "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but it's
short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say "a
telecom company".

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Lanarcam]

I didn't know that meaning, but I am not a native speaker so
dont' take my words for the biblical truth!

[Steve Hayes]

On 30 Jan 2012 20:24:40 GMT, "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> wrote:

>Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>and telecom mean exactly the same thing?

I wouldn't call them words and I am not sure of the meaning of either.

But then I'm also not sure of the meaning of buzzwords like "granularity",
except when they refer to photographs or sand.



--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Peter Moylan]

Lanarcam wrote:
> Le 30/01/2012 21:44, AL_n a écrit :
>> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>> news:4f26fe81$0$6546$426a...@news.free.fr:
>>
>>> Le 30/01/2012 21:24, AL_n a écrit :
>>>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them
>>>> words), telecon and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>>>
>>>> If so, which is preferable?
>>>>
>>> IMO, but who am I, telecom stands for electronic communication
>>> over a long distance whereas telecon is the abbreviation of
>>> tele-conference, conference over a distance. I would say that
>>> they are not synonymous.
>>>
>>
>> Now I'm puzzled; I have read dozens of formal letters containg
>> phrases such as "further to our telecom" or "regarding your
>> telecom" (both referring to a telephonic communication).

I assume that that was from people who do not speak English very well. I
don't think you'd ever see it from a native speaker. (Unless it's Indian
English, which seems to be inventing new words fairly quickly.)

>>
>> Then I saw this dictionary definition of "telecon":
>> http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/telecon
>>
> I didn't know that meaning, but I am not a native speaker so dont'
> take my words for the biblical truth!
>

I'm a native speaker, and I don't know that meaning either. Notice that
every citation they give is a reference to a conference, in disagreement
with their own definition.

Conclusion: "thefreedictionary" is worth exactly what you paid for it.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:46:14 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>"AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> writes:
>
>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>
>No. "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
>"Tele-conference". "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but it's
>short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say "a
>telecom company".

Which in turn is abbreviated to "telco".

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

No, that's much more specific -- a *telephone* company, not a generic
data communications company.

[Duggy]

On Jan 31, 9:30 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:46:14 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:

>
> >"AL_n" <fgdfg...@fghfghfg.com> writes:
>
> >> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
> >> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>
> >No.  "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
> >"Tele-conference".  "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but it's
> >short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say "a
> >telecom company".
>
> Which in turn is abbreviated to "telco".

Could it be that that be used in BrE and AusE because of BT and the
old name of Telstra?

Is it used in AmE?

===
= DUG.
===

[Snidely]

Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> scribbled something like ...

>> >No.  "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
>> >"Tele-conference".  "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but
>> >it's short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say
>> >"a telecom company".
>>
>> Which in turn is abbreviated to "telco".
>
> Could it be that that be used in BrE and AusE because of BT and the
> old name of Telstra?
>
> Is it used in AmE?

Telco is definitely used in AmE, and as DDB noted, it is applied to
*telephone* companies ... even before the AT&T divestiture, and before GTE
grew into Verizon.

It is unlikely to be used of their suppliers, which would be considered
telecom companies, and some of the non-telco carriers might also be
telecoms ... sometimes including cable and satellite services.

/dps

[Duggy]

On Jan 31, 10:09 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> No, that's much more specific -- a *telephone* company, not a generic
> data communications company.

Telecommunications company.

Includes data.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 31, 6:49 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> scribbled something like ...

OK. In Australia the original, sole, Telephone Company was called
Telecom (now Telstra) so "Telecom" is only used here to refer to that
(or a number of newer smaller companies which have started to use the
name.)

Telco is used to describe the telecommunication companies most of
which provide telephone, mobile and internet as well as cable.

===
= DUG.
===

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-01-30 21:44:48 +0100, "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> said:

> Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
> news:4f26fe81$0$6546$426a...@news.free.fr:
>
>> Le 30/01/2012 21:24, AL_n a écrit :
>>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words),
>>> telecon and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>>
>>> If so, which is preferable?
>>>
>> IMO, but who am I, telecom stands for electronic communication
>> over a long distance whereas telecon is the abbreviation of
>> tele-conference, conference over a distance. I would say that they
>> are not synonymous.
>>
>
> Now I'm puzzled; I have read dozens of formal letters containg phrases such
> as "further to our telecom" or "regarding your telecom" (both referring to
> a telephonic communication).

I think what that means is that dozens of the people who write formal
letters to you are confused.


> --
athel

[Mike Lyle]

Perhaps understandably confused by an Anglophone speech habit I'm
always grumbling about: the one which has spawned references to the
"H5M1" virus etc. (Not only English, of course; and of ancient
pedigree.)

--
Mike.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:50:59 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Is your objection to "virus" in "H5N1 virus"? I think the use is
legitimate.

The beastie is in full the "Highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus
subtype H5N1". Shorter forms are "HPAI A(H5N1)", "A(H5N1)" and "H5N1".
I don't think it is wrong to tag "virus" on to the latter two.

The characters "H5N1" are descriptive, adjectival. They refer to
characteristics of the outside of the virus by which it is recognised
both in nature by a cell and experimentally in a lab.

[Snidely]

"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> scribbled something
like ...

> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:50:59 +0000, Mike Lyle
> <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>Perhaps understandably confused by an Anglophone speech habit I'm
>>always grumbling about: the one which has spawned references to the
>>"H5M1" virus etc. (Not only English, of course; and of ancient
>>pedigree.)
>
> Is your objection to "virus" in "H5N1 virus"? I think the use is
> legitimate.

No, I don't think that is his objection. Read his post out loud,
perhaps.

> The characters "H5N1" are descriptive, adjectival. They refer to
> characteristics of the outside of the virus by which it is recognised
> both in nature by a cell and experimentally in a lab.
>

Yes, but read his post out loud.

/dps

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:25:46 +0000 (UTC), Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I seem to have been whooshed!

[Mike Lyle]

Wrap up warm, and it'll go away in a day or two.

But it's notable that the labialization infection is becoming
free-standing, in that a final "n" or "nd" doesn't always need a
following lippy letter: you can sometimes hear foopball fans chanting
"Engalum, Engalum, Engalum!"

--
Mike.

[Dr Nick]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

> "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> writes:
>
>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>
> No. "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
> "Tele-conference". "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but it's
> short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say "a
> telecom company".

I wonder if originally for "telephone conversation". I've certainly
seen it from ages before "conference calls" became popular and the cases
I've seen it in have referred to a conversation between two people.

"Re our telecon:" seems to be military for the Civil Service "We spoke."
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Dr Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> writes:
>>
>>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them
>>> words), telecon and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>
>> No. "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
>> "Tele-conference". "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but
>> it's short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say
>> "a telecom company".
>
> I wonder if originally for "telephone conversation".

Or as several patent attorneys I've worked with have put it,
"telphonic conversation".

> I've certainly seen it from ages before "conference calls" became
> popular and the cases I've seen it in have referred to a
> conversation between two people.

Would you believe, from a citatation:

33. LeMay telecon with Commanding General, 3rd Air Division, July
8, 1950, summarized in LeMay diary, July 8, 1950, Curtis E. LeMay
papers, Library of Congress. (A telecon was an exchange of
teletype messages, flashed upon a screen so that hey might be
viewed simultaneously by more than one person.)

_Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management_,
1990

"teletype conference"?

I see it glossed as "telephone conversation" in 1978 and "telephone
conference" in 1986. And "teletypewriter conference" in 1954.

And for "telephonic conversation" in, get this, 1889:

A correspondent seggests, as "an appropriate and convenient name
for a telephonic conversation," the word "Telecon."

_The Electrical Review_, Feb. 1, 1889

(But that's the only such hit.)

> "Re our telecon:" seems to be military for the Civil Service "We spoke."

--

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Never attempt to teach a pig to
SF Bay Area (1982-) |sing; it wastes your time and
Chicago (1964-1982) |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[JimboCat]

On Feb 2, 5:51 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:22:28 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>

> <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:25:46 +0000 (UTC), Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> scribbled something

> >>like ...
>
> >>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:50:59 +0000, Mike Lyle
> >>> <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>Perhaps understandably confused by an Anglophone speech habit I'm
> >>>>always grumbling about: the one which has spawned references to the
> >>>>"H5M1" virus etc. (Not only English, of course; and of ancient
> >>>>pedigree.)
>
> >>> Is your objection to "virus" in "H5N1 virus"? I think the use is
> >>> legitimate.
>
> >>No, I don't think that is his objection.  Read his post out loud,
> >>perhaps.
>
> >>> The characters "H5N1" are descriptive, adjectival. They refer to
> >>> characteristics of the outside of the virus by which it is recognised
> >>> both in nature by a cell and experimentally in a lab.
>
> >>Yes, but read his post out loud.
>
> >I seem to have been whooshed!
>
> Wrap up warm, and it'll go away in a day or two.
>
> But it's notable that the labialization infection is becoming
> free-standing, in that a final "n" or "nd" doesn't always need a
> following lippy letter: you can sometimes hear foopball fans chanting
> "Engalum, Engalum, Engalum!"

One of my favorite CDs of the last decade is "Nickel Creek", which
includes the old folk song "The Fox" (aka "The Fox on the Town"). On
the CD, he sings it word-perfect, because he uses "easy" words: "The
old gray woman jumped out of bed".

I have two separate live recordings of the same band doing this song,
and on both of them he tries the "hard", toungue-twisty words: "Old
Mother Hubbard stumbled out of her bed" and BOTH times he bobbles it
completely! It's a fast song.

I've discovered that it is actually possible to sing the line, but /
only/ if you omit the "m": "Old Mother Hubbard stubbled out of her
bed".

Baby it's just be.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Reading for pleasure is left to a brave few who resist the weapons of
mass distraction which dominate our lives." [Isaac Kramnick]

[Walter P. Zähl]

My main main problem with H5M1 is that it triggers my 1337 decoder, but It
just doesn't make sense.

/Walter

[Walter P. Zähl]

Dr Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> writes:
>>
>>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>>> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>
>> No. "Telecon" is shorthand (particularly military) for
>> "Tele-conference". "Telecom" isn't a noun that I've noticed, but it's
>> short for the adjective "telecommunications", so you might say "a
>> telecom company".
>
> I wonder if originally for "telephone conversation". I've certainly
> seen it from ages before "conference calls" became popular and the cases
> I've seen it in have referred to a conversation between two people.
>
> "Re our telecon:" seems to be military for the Civil Service "We spoke."

I got used to this expression when I was dealing with British personnel
agencies about 15 years ago; I received quite a lot of emails starting with
"further to our recent telecon, ...", which clearly referred to the phone
call we had just concluded.

/Walter

[John Holmes]

You need to mind your Ps and Qs too, Peter.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[sken...@gmail.com]

Microsoft doesn't recognize telecon and auto-corrects it as telecom. That is why you see it in letters and in e-mail written in outlook.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <7db1a29a-8350-42ce...@googlegroups.com>,

<sken...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Microsoft doesn't recognize telecon and auto-corrects it as telecom.

I don't, either. What are you talking about?

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Guy Barry]

skenny661 wrote in message
news:7db1a29a-8350-42ce...@googlegroups.com...

> Microsoft doesn't recognize telecon and auto-corrects it as telecom. That
> is why you see it in letters and in e-mail written in outlook.

What does "telecon" mean? A scam carried out over the telephone?

--
Guy Barry

[Mike Barnes]

AL_n <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com>:

>Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>

>If so, which is preferable?

In my experience "telecom" is an everyday abbreviation of
"telecommunications", and "telecon" is a rarely-heard abbreviation of
"telephone conversation".

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[GordonD]

"Mike Barnes" <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid...

My immediate thought was that 'telecon' is short for 'teleconference' - i.e.
a meeting carried out by some form of video link where the participants are
in two or more locations.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[Walter P. Zähl]

"GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Mike Barnes" <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid...
>> AL_n <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com>:
>>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), >>telecon
>>> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>>
>>> If so, which is preferable?
>>
>> In my experience "telecom" is an everyday abbreviation of
>> "telecommunications", and "telecon" is a rarely-heard abbreviation of
>> "telephone conversation".
>
>
> My immediate thought was that 'telecon' is short for 'teleconference' -
> i.e. a meeting carried out by some form of video link where the
> participants are in two or more locations.

That's how I use the word as well, although I remember receiving emails
that started "further to our recent telecon", and there the meaning was
clearly "telephone conversation".
Not sure if the sender was British or Indian.

/Walter

[Don Phillipson]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gwg2s.659238$NM3....@fx04.am4...

> What does "telecon" mean? A scam carried out over the telephone?

Widely used in N. America as short for teleconference, viz. conversation
between people in different rooms or cities.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Guy Barry]

"GordonD" wrote in message news:aatnc3...@mid.individual.net...

> "Mike Barnes" <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid...
> > AL_n <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com>:
> >>Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words),
> >>telecon
> >>and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>
> >>If so, which is preferable?
>
> > In my experience "telecom" is an everyday abbreviation of
> > "telecommunications", and "telecon" is a rarely-heard abbreviation of
> > "telephone conversation".

I've occasionally heard "telcon" for "telephone conversation", but not
"telecon". To add to the confusion, there's also "telco" for "telephone
company" (though that may be industry jargon).

> My immediate thought was that 'telecon' is short for 'teleconference' -
> i.e. a meeting carried out by some form of video link where the
> participants are in two or more locations.

That would make more sense to me.

--
Guy Barry

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:35:31 -0700 (PDT), sken...@gmail.com wrote:

>Microsoft doesn't recognize telecon and auto-corrects it as telecom. That is why you see it in letters and in e-mail written in outlook.

I suspect that there is a more significant reason: that the sender intended to
write "telecom".

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[John Varela]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:29:24 UTC, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <k2cmpj$n1q$2...@speranza.aioe.org>

> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Gwg2s.659238$NM3....@fx04.am4...
>
> >> What does "telecon" mean? A scam carried out over the telephone?
>
> > Widely used in N. America as short for teleconference, viz. conversation
> > between people in different rooms or cities.
>

> This must be an unfamiliar use of 'widely' I am unfamiliar with. I've
> never heard anyone refer to a teleconference as 'telecon'.

I have, but not recently since I've been retired for 17 years.

--
John Varela

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind. -- George Orwell

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:

> In article <7db1a29a-8350-42ce...@googlegroups.com>,
> <sken...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Microsoft doesn't recognize telecon and auto-corrects it as telecom.
>
> I don't, either. What are you talking about?

If you search Google Groups for a thread with this very topic, you'll
find that we discussed it at the end of January. It is/was military
speak for either "teleconference" or "teletype conference" (back when
such things occurred)

33. LeMay telecon with Commanding General, 3rd Air Division, July
8, 1950, summarized in LeMay diary, July 8, 1950, Curtis E. LeMay
papers, Library of Congress. (A telecon was an exchange of
teletype messages, flashed upon a screen so that hey might be
viewed simultaneously by more than one person.)

_Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management_,
1990

and I found an early suggestion to use it for "telephonic
conversation"

A correspondent seggests, as "an appropriate and convenient name
for a telephonic conversation," the word "Telecon."

_The Electrical Review_, Feb. 1, 1889

though I didn't find an evidence that that suggestion was taken up.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |A little government and a little luck
SF Bay Area (1982-) |are necessary in life, but only a
Chicago (1964-1982) |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[AL_n]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:aQo2s.575260
$0b5....@fx28.am4:

>> > In my experience "telecom" is an everyday abbreviation of
>> > "telecommunications", and "telecon" is a rarely-heard abbreviation of
>> > "telephone conversation".
>
> I've occasionally heard "telcon" for "telephone conversation", but not
> "telecon".

So you have, but you haven't? I don't understand. Whas this a typo?

A

[Guy Barry]

"AL_n" wrote in message news:XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11...

>
>"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:aQo2s.575260
>$0b5....@fx28.am4:

[Mike Barnes wrote:]

>
>>> > In my experience "telecom" is an everyday abbreviation of
>>> > "telecommunications", and "telecon" is a rarely-heard abbreviation of
>>> > "telephone conversation".
>>
>> I've occasionally heard "telcon" for "telephone conversation", but not
>> "telecon".
>
>So you have, but you haven't? I don't understand. Whas this a typo?

This was a message from September, and I think it's a little unfair of you
to expect me to remember the context from that far back, particularly since
you omitted the relevant attribution line. Here's the post:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/234c5a6a4da55c65

Mike Barnes said that he'd heard "telecon" for telephone conversation, and I
said I hadn't, but I'd heard "telcon" instead. There was no typo. Maybe
you misread "telcon" as "telecon".

--
Guy Barry

[AL_n]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in

news:LHyFs.969125$W63.4...@fx05.am4:

> Mike Barnes said that he'd heard "telecon" for telephone conversation,
> and I said I hadn't, but I'd heard "telcon" instead. There was no
> typo. Maybe you misread "telcon" as "telecon".

I did indeed. Sorry to be such a PITA! :-7

A

[Curlytop]

AL_n set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:

"Telecon" is a legit abbreviation, but it stands for "telephone confidence
trick", i.e. a scam conducted by phone. How many people here have been
called by pseudo-Microsoft engineers investigating an error report from
your PC?
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[asdf]

I'm at a very big company, and I get emails all the time inviting me to a "telecom". I seem to be in the minority by using "telecon", but i'm sticking to it. i think the problem is that spell check underlines telecon, but not telecom. It is a conference call, not a comference call!

In every instance, the person is referring to a meeting where someone will be calling in to a meeting on a speakerphone.

[Peter Moylan]

On 22/03/13 09:12, asdf wrote:

> I'm at a very big company, and I get emails all the time inviting me to a "telecom". I seem to be in the minority by using "telecon", but i'm sticking to it. i think the problem is that spell check underlines telecon, but not telecom. It is a conference call, not a comference call!
>
> In every instance, the person is referring to a meeting where someone will be calling in to a meeting on a speakerphone.

Stick to your guns. You don't have to use the wrong word just because
someone else does. I'd even be tempted to send a politely-worded reply
pointing out a typo. (Calling it a typo is more polite than calling it a
spelling error.)

I'm more concerned that this article might have exposed a threading
error in Thunderbird. This is what I see as the threading tree. I'm
listing it by author rather than by subject because the subject is
always the same.

AL_n 04/01/13
Guy Barry 04/01/13
AL_n 05/01/13
Curleytop 05/01/13
asdf 22/03/13

The first four of these are no longer accessible, so I can't see the
References: headers; but from the dates they cannot be responses to what
asdf wrote.

Do others see the same threading, or something different?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Snidely]

Just this Friday, Peter Moylan explained that ...

I don't understand your question. Your diagram doesn't suggest to me
that the older messages are being shown as responses to asdf, unless
Thunderbird shows the newest message leftmost.

And I have a slightly different threading. asdf seems to be replying
to a message from Jan 30. 2012 (by AL_n) [which a certain large
search-engine-and-cloud-and-more confirms] so it is at the same indent
as the first one you show (which actually should be indented some more,
because it's a reply to Guy Barry [and that, says GooGru, is to GordonD
to Mike Barnes, the latter pair in Sept 2012).

It looks like my reader still has most but not all of those messages,
perhaps deleting them when they expired off of E-S. On the other hand,
Nick S has a pretty solid archive, AIUI.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I see the same in Forte Agent.

Some of the headers from each message:

From: "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom
Date: 4 Jan 2013 10:32:08 GMT
Message-ID: <XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11>
References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
<kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>
<aatnc3...@mid.individual.net> <aQo2s.575260$0b5....@fx28.am4>

From: "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
<kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>
<aatnc3...@mid.individual.net> <aQo2s.575260$0b5....@fx28.am4>
<XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11>
In-Reply-To: <XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11>
Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom

From: "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom
Date: 4 Jan 2013 14:51:54 GMT
Message-ID: <XnsA13E971F...@130.133.4.11>
References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
<kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>
<aatnc3...@mid.individual.net> <aQo2s.575260$0b5....@fx28.am4>
<XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11>
<LHyFs.969125$W63.4...@fx05.am4>

From: Curlytop <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:36:36 +0000
Message-ID: <kc8vnl$kv3$1...@dont-email.me>
References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
<kdUTJHHM...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>
<aatnc3...@mid.individual.net> <aQo2s.575260$0b5....@fx28.am4>
<XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11>

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=143.232.138.47;
posting-account=FLW6tAoAAAAaf4oS6SFq8YsXc9Apytgd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 143.232.138.47
References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
Message-ID: <02f70396-3358-4227...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom
From: asdf <dlev...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:12:09 +0000

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:29:34 +1100
From: Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; Warp 4.5; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121116
Thunderbird/10.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom
References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>
<02f70396-3358-4227...@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <02f70396-3358-4227...@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.245.55.114
Message-ID: <514d3dbf$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Moylan]

It's a false alarm, then. My comments were, at least in part, prompted
by the fact that the posting by asdf looked like the beginning of a
thread rather than a continuation of one.

I probably wouldn't have reacted that way if I hadn't seen some
indications, in other threads, that Thunderbird was getting the
threading wrong.

[Snidely]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] explained :

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:29:34 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/03/13 09:12, asdf wrote:

[...]

>> I'm more concerned that this article might have exposed a threading
>> error in Thunderbird. This is what I see as the threading tree. I'm
>> listing it by author rather than by subject because the subject is
>> always the same.
>>
>> AL_n 04/01/13
>> Guy Barry 04/01/13
>> AL_n 05/01/13
>> Curleytop 05/01/13
>> asdf 22/03/13
>>
>> The first four of these are no longer accessible, so I can't see the
>> References: headers; but from the dates they cannot be responses to what
>> asdf wrote.
>>
>> Do others see the same threading, or something different?
>
> I see the same in Forte Agent.
>
> Some of the headers from each message:
>
> From: "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> Subject: Re: Telecon vs. telecom
> Date: 4 Jan 2013 10:32:08 GMT
> Message-ID: <XnsA13E6B15...@130.133.4.11>
> References: <Xns9FEACEDD...@130.133.4.11>

[...]


You've no doubt figured out the ID of the ur-message by now.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

[uch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 30, 2012 1:31:05 PM UTC-7, Joachim Pense wrote:

> Am 30.01.2012 21:24, schrieb AL_n:
>
> > Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>
> > and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>
> >
>
>
>

> For me, a telecon is a telephone conference, but a telecom is a
>
> telecommunication company.
>
>
>
> Joachim

Hi Joachim!!!!!!!! :) ute

[Robert Bannister]

I only know "telco" as a telephone/broadband provider. "Telecom" used to
be the name of one of them.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 7, 2012 7:45:58 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Gwg2s.659238$NM3....@fx04.am4...

> > What does "telecon" mean? A scam carried out over the telephone?
>
> Widely used in N. America as short for teleconference, viz. conversation
> between people in different rooms or cities.

So even back then he was using "Widely used in N. America" to mean,
at best, 'in Canada'.

(I didn't notice this was an old thread until Evan appeared in it.)

I've never encountered either word, except that I think there's a
corporation with Telecom in its name.

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:buvc6c...@mid.individual.net...

>
>On 1/06/2014 5:25 am, uch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 30, 2012 1:31:05 PM UTC-7, Joachim Pense wrote:
>>> Am 30.01.2012 21:24, schrieb AL_n:
>>>
>>>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words),
>>>> telecon
>>>
>>>> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>>
>
>>>
>>> For me, a telecon is a telephone conference, but a telecom is a
>>>
>>> telecommunication company.
>
>I only know "telco" as a telephone/broadband provider. "Telecom" used to be
>the name of one of them.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu here - why has this thread been resurrected
from 2012?

When the former Post Office Telecommunications was split off from the rest
of the Post Office and privatized by the Thatcher government, it traded
under the name "British Telecom". (It now calls itself "BT" but a lot of
people still use the old name.) Some other companies use the word "Telecom"
in their name, but the abbreviation I generally see for "telecommunications"
is "telecomms".

--
Guy Barry

[charles]

In article <5yBiv.215047$Mx1.1...@fx02.am4>, Guy Barry

To be accuate British Telecom was founded in 1980, waqs split off from the
GPO in 1981, but wasn't privatised until 1984.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Guy Barry]

"charles" wrote in message
news:5410dbc6...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...

To be even more accurate, the GPO didn't exist at the time when British
Telecom was founded. It was abolished in 1969 and replaced by the Post
Office, a statutory corporation. (The GPO had been a Department of State.)

--
Guy Barry

[Dr Nick]

There's a row of three manhole covers on the pavement outside our house.
They say, in order, "GPO", "PO", "BT".

They've recently been joined by a fourth BT one - that's got fibre
broadband stuff in it.

[Tak To]

Two " m "'s?

Google results:
"telecom industry" - 577000
"telecoms industry" - 535000
"telecomms industry" - 45900

A lot of "telecoms industry" entries are marked non-US;
whereas most of "telecom industry" are unmarked.

It seems that "telecommunication" and "telecommunications"
are free variants in most context; at least in the US.
In Wikipedia, the latter is redirected to the former,
and the article contains both "telecom industry" and
"telecoms industry". In the US, the prevalent form
seems to be "telecom" (short for both).

Btw, <comp.dcom.telecom> was one of the popular mailing
lists that got grand-fathered into Usenet without a
charter. It is a moderated group.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[sp.mike...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 30 January 2012 20:24:40 UTC, AL_n wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>

> If so, which is preferable?
>

> TIA
>
> Al

For a number of years I, and my colleagues in the UK, have used 'telecon' referring to a telephone conversation.
e.g.
'Further to our telecon earlier today, I have completed your request.'
I am not saying that this is correct, but have never been criticised for using it.
MikeRG

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Friday, 24 March 2017 13:22:24 UTC, sp.mike...@gmail.com wrote:
> For a number of years I, and my colleagues in the UK, have used 'telecon' referring to a telephone conversation.
> e.g.
> 'Further to our telecon earlier today, I have completed your request.'

I used it in that manner in the 1980s, in Telex messages.

Owain

[Paul Carmichael]

On 24/03/17 14:22, sp.mike...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 30 January 2012 20:24:40 UTC, AL_n wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking that the words (if you can call them words), telecon
>> and telecom mean exactly the same thing?
>>

>

> For a number of years I, and my colleagues in the UK, have used 'telecon' referring to a telephone conversation.

I remember "telcon". Also in the yuk.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

[bill van]

In article <2aacb1cb-5d87-42e7...@googlegroups.com>,

In my world, telecom is short for telecommunications and refers to a
global industry that provides wired and wireless communications services.

Telecon certainly doesn't mean that. It has been used as a short version
of teleconference or teleconferencing, which means a telephone call with
multiple parties participating. It was also the name of a now defunct
telecom trade show.

You can use it to mean a telephone conversation if you want to, but
should realize that most people -- in my part of the world, at least --
use "phone call" for that. If you're using it in a closed circle of
people who all know what you want it to mean, fine. But most of the
world won't know what you're talking about, which I think limits its
usefulness.
--
bill

[Mark Brader]

Mike Goodman:

> > For a number of years I, and my colleagues in the UK, have used

> > 'telecon' referring to a telephone conversation...

Owain:

> I used it in that manner in the 1980s, in Telex messages.

Then it seems appropriate that Mike was responding to a posting from 2012.
--
Mark Brader | "While President Obama isn't from Kenya, he is a Keynesian--
Toronto | so you can see where the confusion arises."
m...@vex.net | --Supreme Court brief by Cato Inst. & P.J. O'Rourke