Re: Fw: Why do we put so many warnings in our manuals?

["Richard G. Combs" <richard -dot- combs -at- voyanttech -dot- com>]

letoured wrote:

> You posted a link to a humor page -- with the point being what?

To give us a good laugh while offering us some perspective. Thank, you
Janice, I had a good laugh. But then, I'm not as humorless and
self-righteous as the more "caring" and "sensitive" members of society.

letoured then tried to slip one by us with:

> We sometimes think warnings are over done and stupid. -- But think about
it --
> use the classic 'hair dryer do not put in water' warning as an example;
They
> are manufactured for sale around the world to people of differing
education
> and life experiences.  The warnings are aimed at the worst-case.

The warnings are for the American market. They're in English, for crying out
loud. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that, if the hair dryer *is* sold around
the world, you won't find translated versions of those warnings in very many
(if any) places.

Then, letoured appealed to our emotions with a heartbreaking little fable:

> Put yourself in this example; There are still places in the US where
people do
> not have electricity, or generate it on their own for food preservation
and
> little more.  <snip>
> Its not really unbelievable that one wouldn't know the danger now is
t.  --
> BTW, I just described what could take place here in the 21th century a
hundred
> miles or so from Philadelphia.

It *could*, I guess. For perspective, see the warning at Janice's link
(http://quark.physics.uwo.ca/~harwood/humor14.html) that begins "Advisory:
There is an Extremely Small but Nonzero Chance That..."

For additional perspective, consider that, according to US government data,
in 1993, 97.3% of households _living in poverty_ had at least one color TV
(see http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1221.html). Am I jumping
to a conclusion to assume that a large portion of the remaining 2.7% *chose*
not to have a TV and were nonetheless familiar with electricity?

This kind of argument, like the "precautionary principle" in vogue among
environmentalists, prompts me to ask: At what point do you _stop_ imposing
huge costs and draconian regulations and restrictions on all of us in order
to avoid some vanishingly small risk of a bad outcome? Ever? I suppose not,
if you're sufficiently "caring" and "sensitive" -- and self-righteously
paternalistic.

Harrumph!
Richard

------
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Voyant Technologies, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT voyanttechDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT freeDASHmarketDOTnet
303-777-0436
------






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
  5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
  Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

Buy RoboHelp Deluxe starting at only $798: you'll get RoboDemo, the hot new
software demonstration tool that's taking the Help authoring world by storm,
together with RoboHelp Office. Learn more at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
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.