RE: My complaint about the tedious immortal thread

[Keith Hood <klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

My original request was not presumptuous, it was a
heartfelt plea for relief from the tedium of seeing
the same subject line coming up again and again and
again and again and again and again, day after day
after day after day after day after day. 

Six emails may have been your output on the subject of
philosophy, or the total of your output under that
subject line, but if you will bother to stretch
yourself to go back to the beginning of the subject
line I complained about, you will see that the thread
began last month, with the first post on May 15.
Between the original thread "Tech Writer Lawsuit"
subject line and its child lines "Tech Writer Lawsuit
- STC Position" and "Tech Writer Lawsuit - follow up?"
there have been, by my count, 262 posts in the past 20
days (today included). Compared to the normal length
and quantity of posts on a single topic on this board,
that constitutes a flood of Biblical proportion.

And by the way, my count of 262 may actually be a bit
low. It does not include those archive entries labeled
"Message not available."

You use the word "presumptuous" in the sense of, as
the dictionary says, "impertinent boldness." So you
are accusing me of being impertinent. But impertinence
is possible only when there is a known and recognized
difference in rank between two people, or when it is
established that one deserves deference from the
other. I am your equal in every way so your use of the
word "presumptuous" reveals that you have a very badly
inflated opinion of yourself. You should do something
about that. 

I'll make you a deal - you eschew sophistry, learn how
to count, learn your proper place in this world, and
buy or grow some of the manners which you admit are
important, and I'll eschew hyperbole.


--- "Leonard C. Porrello"
<Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- SoleraTec -dot- com> wrote:

> Your original request was not to change the subject
> line. It was to
> desist. That was presumptuous, as was your
> suggestion that what was
> obviously material to at least three posters on the
> list was of no
> interest to anyone else. If you wanted a new subject
> line, why didn't
> you say so initially? I think most TWs would agree
> that it is important
> to avoid presumption and strive for clarity.
> 
> Had you asked that I change the subject line, I
> would have happily
> obliged. Changing the subject line is a good idea.
> I'll remember to do
> so in the future.
>  
> Six emails hardly constitutes "a huge flood". I
> think most TWs would
> agree that it's important to eschew hyperbole. On
> the other hand, if six
> emails really "filled" your in box, you really need
> to do something
> about your email server.
> 
> Neither your presumption that what was written is
> not material to TW or
> of interest to anyone else, nor your attempt to
> censor me, Keith, and
> Gene, nor your implicit slight fit in with any idea
> of "plane good
> manners" that I've ever encountered. I think most
> TWs would agree that
> "plane good manners" are important when
> communicating with ones
> audience.
> 
> Leonard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Hood [mailto:klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:24 AM
> To: Leonard C. Porrello; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: My complaint about the tedious immortal
> thread
> 
> It is tiresome to have one's in box constantly
> filled
> with messages that are no longer germane to the
> purpose of the list, that long ago lost any
> significant connection to the original purpose of
> the
> thread, that are not accurately described by the
> subject line, and that one must continually skim
> past
> to find topics that may be of use. Continuing to use
> the "Lawsuit" subject line for discussions of
> philosophy is a disservice to other readers who may
> actually want to read about that lawsuit and its
> (logically) related ramifications.
> 
> It is tiresome to be forced to continually delete a
> huge flood of mislabeled, misrepresented messages in
> order to winnow the list down to those which may
> still
> serve some useful purpose.
> 
> It is not sensible to continue to use a *very* old
> tag
> line for a message the content of which has changed
> so
> much that is has only the vaguest connection with
> the
> board's purpose or even with its own subject line,
> and
> in order to establish even that tenuous connection
> the
> writer must resort to the use of parables. 
> 
> It would be just plain good manners for some people,
> once they have been given a request, to stop
> performing an act which they have been told is a
> source of annoyance.
> 
> If you just absolutely must continue to the use the
> subject line "Tech Writer Lawsuit," would you
> please,
> if only for the sake of those who might actually be
> interested in that lawsuit, make your posts actually
> germane TO THAT LAWSUIT?
> 
> Failing that, if you wish to post messages about
> philosophy, would you please use subject lines that
> actually identify the real subject matter of your
> posts? Is it too much to ask that a technical
> writer,
> a person who is supposedly interested in making his
> writing accurate, use a subject line that is an
> accurate label for the true nature of his post?
> 
> 
> --- "Leonard C. Porrello"
> <Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- SoleraTec -dot- com> wrote:
> 
> > If the moderator has appointed you as a deputy,
> I'd
> > happily defer.
> > Otherwise, I'd suggest you missed the explicit TW
> > tie-in: "This is
> > analogous to the distinction that can be made
> > between professional and
> > amateur writers. Professional writers ideally
> > understand their
> > rhetorical decisions, why they are saying what
> they
> > are saying in the
> > way they are saying it."
> > 
> > If you can't see the discussion's implications for
> > tech writing or are
> > otherwise uninterested, you can always press
> > "Delete".
> > 
> > Leonard
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> >
>
techwr-l-bounces+leonard -dot- porrello=soleratec -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >
>
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+leonard -dot- porrello=soleratec -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- c
> > om] On Behalf Of Keith Hood
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:07 AM
> > To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > Subject: Re: Tech Writer Lawsuit
> > 
> > OK, since I am a professional curmudgeon now that
> > this
> > discussion has turned into a philosophical
> > discussion
> > on a board that is supposed to be used for
> > discussing
> > matters related to technical writing, I will
> finally
> > surrender to the urge I have had for days and ask
> > can
> > we *please* FINALLY end this thread? Or can
> someone
> > still detect one live cell in this horse carcass?
> > 
> > 
> > --- Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:
> > 
> > > They may balance out as far as current earnings
> > > (though
> > > the numbers of technical writers with
> > non-technical
> > > degrees
> > > who switched might argue against that) but the
> > > higher initial
> > > salary means the non-techs would have to end up
> > > earning
> > > *more* to achieve lifetime balance.  A college
> > > friend of
> > > mine went on to earn her PhD, and on the first
> day
> > > of the
> > > doctoral program, the advisor told all present
> > that
> > > if they
> > > were pursuing a doctorate because they thought
> > > they'd
> > > make more money they should drop out now and get
> > > jobs,
> > > because the added income for a PhD would never
> > make
> > > up for the years of lost income getting it.
> > > 
> > > And yes, the pay for engineering instructors
> > > traditionally
> > > is just as bad as for the humanities.  Most of
> my
> > > engineering instructors in college were either
> > there
> > > teaching after having retired from careers in
> > > industry
> > > or because the job came with free use of college
> > lab
> > > and other facilities for consulting work that
> > > brought in
> > > more money than they made teaching.
> > > 
> > > Gene Kim-Eng
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Leonard C. Porrello"
> > > <Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- SoleraTec -dot- com>
> > > >There's a lot of validity to what you are
> saying.
> 
=== message truncated ===



      
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or 
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007 
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.
http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList

True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- 

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.