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.
eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com wrote:
> bounce-techwr-l-106467 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com wrote on 09/01/2004 05:30:52
> PM:
>> I made those additional comments in response to the poster
>> whose initial post on the matter was the equivalent of "Shut up."
>> I agree with everything you wrote.
>
> Which poster was that?
That was you, dear Eric!
"Funny how grammar questions ALWAYS generate the most traffic. Lots of
heat, very little light... GEESH!"
Don't ever assume someone said shut up unless
> they type it out specifically. E-mail/text is a horrendous medium
> from which to try and infer/interpret meaning or intent.
>
Oh, but we cannot type that here. This is not Usenet. <g>
> And while my post may have quoted yours, I think it was only because
> you were the most vocal.
>
Actually, John and I were having quite a spirited disagreement. I went
down fighting, though. That Cambridge Dictionary entry really was a
shocker. LOL.
> If the initial questions was even remotely about grammar then the
> discussion would have been at least on topic. But it wasn't it was
> about information design/presentation.
>
I see your point. I responded to a late post made by John this
afternoon. In it he mentioned this issue and not understanding some
aspect of it.
> Surprisingly, and the reason for my reaction to grammar threads,
> while the answers to the actual question were varied and opposing all
> involved seemed to accept the varying views of the world. The grammar
> debates (and not just this one) only seem to stop once all the
> participants tire of typing.
>
In this case, I feel the discussion was very helpful. I would not have
learned of the Cambridge Dictionary's stance on the issue if John had
not posted that link. I thought I knew all of the pros and cons on the
issue, and in fact, I didn't.
> If only some of the technical or industry threads lit such enthusiasm
> on the list. And then writer's wonder why we don't get no respect. :P
>
I'm on the copyediting list also; you should see us go at it there. When
things get really crazy, Bill Blinn says, "Take it to chat, folks."
Been nice fighting with you, Eric. Are we done? Yes!!!
Bonnie Granat
www.GranatEdit.com
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Mobile: 617-319-7461
Office: 617-354-7084
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.
