TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
FWD: Re: Would you like a fries with that style guide, redux
Subject:FWD: Re: Would you like a fries with that style guide, redux From:"Dick Margulis" <margulis -at- mail -dot- fiam -dot- net> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:05:23 -0400
Barry,
The rules of the list are clear. It is appropriate to disagree with (and attack) an argument that is put forward. It is unacceptable to attack a person. There have been times when I have tried very carefully to attack an argument but have been misunderstood as having attacked the proponent of that argument. I thought this to be a situation in which that sort of misunderstanding might arise. Therefore I took pains to point out that I was not directing my comments at you personally. That is the clearest way I know to say what I mean, and there is not even the slightest bit of irony, archness, or sarcasm in it. Please accept that at face value.
My original comment was directed at the tech-writing-specific issue of using bogus algebraic notation (your algebraic notation is bogus, as I will explain below) to make a poorly constructed and logically flawed argument (i.e., a specious argument) appear to be a mathematical truth.
I think that as tech writers we have an obligation to be clear, concise, and truthful, to the extent that is possible. So I was cautioning techwrlers against what I see as bad practice.
The reason your algebra is bogus is that it contains an expression that implies division of one quantity by another (if interpreted as true algebraic notation) but that you meant as merely a choice between two names for the same thing. I don't have it in front of me, but it was something like "(c/d)." You also implied that the other concepts were numerically quantifiable and that the numbers could be added and multiplied to produce a mathematical equivalence.
The speciousness of your argument arises from that last notion--that these fairly vague concepts can be quantified rigorously and manipulated arithmetically. Perhaps they can, but I saw no evidence of that in your statement of your theorem.
>No, I'm sorry. I don't get it. And apparently I have not made myself
>clear. I didn't understand your point: You called the equation a bogus,
>specious argument. I didn't see your comment as an argument, just a claim.
> And I am not sure at all where the issue of ad hominem came up at all.
>I'm reeally sorry if you misunderstood. Perhaps an argument from you would
>be in place, now. Perhaps not. That's what I meant by "nevermind".
>Once again, it is I who must apologize. I'll know better next time.
>
>Barry
>>> >
>
>
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available 4/30/01 at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
Sponsored by DigiPub Solutions Corp, producers of PDF 2001 Conference East,
June 4-6, Baltimore, MD. Now covering Acrobat 5. Early registration deadline
April 27. http://www.pdfconference.com.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
