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.
IMHO replace the slash with a coma and leave the second clause in.
========================
At 19:19 12/7/94 -0500, Peter W Praetorius wrote:
>I am presently working for a manufacturer of lawn mowers. Today the boss,
>while editing a manual in print, asked my opinion of a sentence that he
>feels is redundant, yet he's wondering if leaving it in might be better
>from a legal standpoint. One of the main reasons for the manuals is to
>protect the company from law suits. For instance, one person sued the
>company for not warning him that he should not use the machine for a hedge
>trimmer -- he lost some fingers. Now all manuals have a statement that
>says that the mower is to be used solely for cutting grass.
>So what do you all think of this sentence? Should the material after the
>"slash" (/) mark be deleted? And is there ever a place for redundancy
>in technical writing?
>"Always operate at speeds that allow you to have complete control of the
>tractor / and can maneuver safely or stop in case of an emergency."
>Probably not the best sentence to begin with, but his feeling was that
>"complete control" would imply "maneuver safely. . . ."
M_a_r_c_ A. _S_a_n_t_a_c_r_o_c_e_________________________
Technical Writer/Trainer
TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
300 Lakeside Dr.
Oakland, CA 94612-3540
santa -at- tfs -dot- com santacroce -at- aol -dot- com
"Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"
