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.
> The false premise with Andrew's argument is that the attempt is to make it
> an objective list. That was never stated or intended.
Oh. So when you said "in other words, discuss it (certification) objectively"
you didn't mean the list would have an objective set of opinions. it would
merely conform to some ground rules (that you defined). Okay. I understand now.
You're the moderator, you're governing the discussion. Got it.
> What is intended is that:
>
> 1) You are open to being convinced one way or another, that you will discuss
> your reasons civilly and like a grownup.
What is a "grownup?". What constitutes "civility?" Can somebody in your
private group say "I think that is an absurd idea, because...." or is that
considered to hostile? Must all disagreements be phrased in a certain way? What
way is that? What is deemed appropriate and not appropriate? Have you defined a
clear list of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable? What are your
terms for allowing people? Are they public? Can they be discussed? Can people
analyze your intentions? Are people allowed to question your judgments and say
"I think your judgment is wrong?"
> 2) You discuss a topic based on it's merits, not on it's ability to elicit
> emotional response.
What is an emotional response? What is "discussing a topic based on its
merits?" Can you define that? When has a person become emotional? What is the
purpose of such restrictions? Have you published these intentions?
Is:
"The point is, they make their arguments without beating everyone else over
the head. They disagree without making ad hominem attacks. They disagree
without spouting off just to get a reaction from others whose mission in
life seems to be rising to the bait simply because they can."
...intended to ilicit an emotional response?
The person who wrote this is in your special group. I sure didn't feel very
accepted, loved, or respected when I read it (considering the author was pretty
obviously directing it at me). But, maybe I am just too sensitive.
And why are you (and others) so hostile toward me for asking these questions?
Isn't hostility an emotion?
In another message you said...
> Kinda like "drive-by" discussion...take pot-shots when ya want with no
> interest in the response or it's meaning.
Is this emotional? Or is this objective? What is this meant to illicit?
I have an interest. An interest in figuring out the logic in this.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.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.
