Re: The Problem With Fonts (RE: Font Selection Methodology)

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

--- eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com wrote:

> A new techwriter who asks about single-sourcing, IMM, fonts, or styles should
> not get a  response that states 'XXXX is used by worthless writers to avoid 
> work and most writers don't know cr*p and the rest are whiners and liars'. It

> may not be a 'direct' attack on them, but it's certainly painting a wide 
> swath and pretty much insinuating guilt by association. (which can be seen in

> the thread RE: And you wonder why people lurk...)

There is a big difference between:

"I think single-sourcing is dumb."
vs.
"I think you're dumb for using single-sourcing."

The first statement is an opinion about a concept. Ideally the person who said
that would then back up that claim with his reasons. Those that disagreed with
this person would then attempt to counter those reasons - thus an intelligent
discussion ensues. It is perfectly normal to ridicule concepts as a mechanism
to start discussion. The essence of the Socratic method is to question and
attack concepts to better understand them. 

The second statement is a direct attack against a person. It is calling them a
name because they do something. 

Many people lack the ability to differentiate these two statements. They assume
that the first statement is synonymous with the second. It is a lot easier to
read Internet postings and argue on list-serves when you have this concept very
clearly understood. 

>> "I don't ridicule people, I ridicule attitudes, ideas, and practices. It 
>> isn't my fault if you chose to transfer that ridicule from the idea to 
>> yourself."
> 
> Heard it before, but I'm not so sure. If someone claims to be a communicator
I
> think it is very much their fault if their meaning is repeatedly
misconstrued.
> But if we are to take posts at face value, the attitudes, ideas, and
practices
> often being ridiculed are being supported or discussed by large numbers of
> techwriters and do have some relevance (admitted by all without exception) to
> techwriting in general.

So we're not allowed to question these attitudes, ideas, and practices?

Because a lot of writers are emotionally attached to fonts, I am not allowed to
say - hey, that's lame focus on learning technologies? 

People generally hear what they want to hear. And there are a fair number of
people here (and in the world as a whole) who regardless of how clear and
concise a concept is - they will misunderstand it. It isn't that the text is
wrong, but because they have a preconceived notion about something and ANY
discussion that contradicts their beliefs is fundamentally flawed and must be
silenced. 

My answer: finger, meet delete key. 

> How does ridiculing an attitude not ridicule the person that has it? How does
> ridiculing a practice that is perfectly sound when correctly and not 
> obsessively
> applied not ridicule the person who is in a fix and desperately trying to
sort
> out a problem applying it? How does ridiculing an idea successfully applied
by
> respected professionals not ridicule those same professionals? I would also
> wonder if ridicule is ever acceptable or professional.

Without painful and incisive analysis of time-honored ideas, there would never
be any progression. 

Hence, all professions needs people who have transcended the "process" and the
"theories" to begin asking - but does this make sense? Does this REALLY make a
difference? Should we be doing it. 

Let's not get hung up on the word ridicule here. Concepts, ideas, and theories
need and deserve to be challenged. Sometimes those challenges manifest as
ridicule or satire. 

> As a parliamentary debater, I was taught to question attitudes, ideas, and
> practices (who, what, where, why, when, how). Ridicule and insult of the same
> was the last resort of someone without ideas of their own. Funnily enough, if
> I ever uttered the words stupid, ridiculous, preposterous, or had the 
> temerity to laugh at the presentation of others I lost. When I stuck to 
> questioning, I almost won a provincial championship.

TECHWR-L is not a parliament and parliamentary procedures are not in effect.
Therefore, this is an open and unstructured discussion. Eric provides some
basic ground rules and then lets us at it. 

Just because you disagree or dislike the manner that a person expresses
themselves, does not make their ideas or their points any less valid. It may
discourage some people from listening to that person and discount their
credibility, but it doesn't reduce the validity of their ideas. 

Some people like to see discussion groups as a battle. They see themselves as
combatants and others as opponents. They also think there is rules and that
they can unilaterally impose other members.

If you want to follow strict parliamentary rules, then I suggest you locate a
group that more appropriate reflects that desire. Alternatively, you could
petition Eric to enforce strict parliamentary rules on this group. This would
likely result in the list dropping to about 3 lurking members. 

Otherwise, you're stuck with dealing with the differences in how people express
themselves. And that, in and of itself, is a communication challenge. Can you
look past the words and the passion into the real text. Some people cannot.
They become consumed with the "media" and miss the idea. Hence, they want to
redirect discussions to conform to their rules of communication. 

Personally, I would prefer it if people would just come right out and say what
they're thinking versus this attempt at legitimizing a personal attack using
some meta-argument. 

So to summarize your message Eric, you don't like the way I express myself and
that makes you not respect my opinions.

No problem. I'll remove you from my Christmas card list. 

Snorkies, 
Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr

Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. 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.