For all sorts of reasons, I think that being pedantic about the meanings of acronyms probably does more to inhibit understanding each other than it does to facilitate it.
In this particular case, regardless of how often anyone has personally seen the term used to mean something more like "I think that...", taking that to be the intended meaning is the most friendly interpretation, and therefore the preferable one. It's an informal forum, we type fast, and don't necessarily carefully proof-read comments before hitting reply. Nor should we -- this place is a more pleasant space to occupy for everyone involved if we give each other the benefit of the doubt about choice of words.
> being pedantic about the meanings of acronyms[...] taking that to be the intended meaning is the most friendly interpretation
Why are you responding as if it's a foregone conclusion that my intent was to be uncharitable/unfriendly?
Someone wrote a comment with unusual phrasing, and I asked for help understanding the message. It contains neither an explicit nor an underhanded attempt to be an asshole to someone. The adversarial reading you're going with is exactly that—something that you're bringing to it, and is (perversely) wholly uncharitable in and of itself...
Whoa, that’s wild! IMO == “In My Opinion”, and it’s all over the internet, along with its cousin IMHO (“In My Humble Opinion”). Are you sure you haven’t seen it before? Try searching for it on HN or Google. HN search shows me almost 100k comments with IMO, and the first page of hits is all this meaning.
