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.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:33:18 -0400,
eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com wrote:
>
>
>
> As we are trying to analyse the authors intent with
> little to go on I'd say we
> are treading on very thin ice.
>
> >>2. There is no premise whatsoever for her metaphor
> *except* the word "bang".
> >>That's my entire point. Only an interpretation of
the
> word in that way allows
> >>for the metaphor.
>
> Was this interpretation meant by the author or read
> into the text by the reader?
> I've included M-W's definitions below, but acceptable
> definitions of child are
> descendent, product, and result. The 'love-child'
> reference may be an innocent
> reference to the fact there was only one parent.
I can see nothing in the text whatsoever except "bang"
that would even invite a reference to a "child", love
or otherwise.
As I said, there's nothing except the word "bang" to
denote generation of life. If I've missed something
else, Eric, be kind enough point it out.
Simple
> to see an absolutely
> non-sexual interpretation. Therefor there is a
> possibility for more than one
> interpretation.
>
> >>3. I do not "enjoy" reading material that uses base
> sexual slang as the
> >>premise for its misguided plays on language (unless
I
> am aware of the possible
> >>content beforehand).
>
> I find it worrying that more often than not, those
that
> complain the loudest
> about sexual innuendo, slurs, or other insult often
> find fault where none was
> intended. Often the complaints reveal more about the
> complainer's insecurities
> and personality than the evil ways of the world or the
> particular
> 'transgressor'. Unfortunately in this case, unless
more
> evidence of author's
> intent is shown, I can only conclude that it is over
> reaction and over
> sensitivity that is the cause of complaint in this
case.
>
The only evidence is that the only reference to
generating life is the word "bang". I cannot say it any
more clearly than that, Eric.
Bonnie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Purchase RoboHelp X3 in April and receive a $100 mail-in
rebate, plus FREE RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.
Order here: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l/
Help celebrate TECHWR-L's 10th Anniversary starting this month!
Check out the contests at http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/special/contests/
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday 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.
