Re: Structure vs Substance?

[Michele Davis <mdavis -at- bitstream -dot- net>]

I think Andrew's posts are mostly misunderstood by people who see what they want
to see, read what they want to read. What Andrew is saying about process is that
"process" per se never got the job done.

I have written processes, and also have not, I have always gotten the job done,
regardless. Mostly I punt. I'm good at punting. A successful technical
communicator HAS a process, in their HEAD, its a part of them, it doesn't need
to be written down for other writer's on the team who wouldn't know their head
from a dog's rear-end, to read, and then attempt to follow.

What process does in my opinion, is give people an excuse for something else to
do. That's why I take 1/3 of the time to complete a project then other tech.
writer's that I, personally, know of.

If you have a brain that works, one that wasn't average to begin with and then
you did a lot of drugs when you were a teen, so now you're a moron, if you have
a brain that can digest information, process it, and spew it back out in a way
your clients understand, well, then you're successful, without 1000 reams of
process documentation.

I think, and this is a stretch here since I don't know Plato that well, but I'm
guessing he thinks people are "whiners" because they ask stupid questions
instead of trying to figure stuff out for themselves. Sometimes I fall into that
category as well, I can be a pillow case sometimes too, and btw, so can Plato,
self-admittedly.

--
Michele

just another stop on the web:  http://www2.bitstream.net/~mdavis

"MacDonald, Stephen" wrote:

> Andrew Plato wrote in response to Dan Emory:
>
> >  This is why an open mind ALWAYS triumphs over a closed one.
>
> Given that it's common in Andrew's postings to see him describing folks whom
> he seems to believe don't agree with his views as "whiners", "wimps", etc, I
> find this an astounding sentence.  It makes me wonder whether he pays
> attention to his own rantings.
>
> I have yet to see ANY project that succeeded (or, admittedly, failed) solely
> by the efforts of the mythical technical hero.  The success came from many
> folks toiling long hours under lousy conditions because some technical
> egomaniac decided he "didn't need no stinkin process."  Most of the pain and
> suffering I have seen in my professional life has been created by those
> egomaniacs and never once, either during the project or after, was any of it
> proved necessary.  (Unless of course, "necessary" means ensuring the
> technical hero never gets his feathers ruffled).
>
> Steve MacDonald
> Aspect Telecommunications, Inc.