Re: Technical Writing: a Calling?!?

[Shmuel Ben-Artzi <sba -at- NETMEDIA -dot- NET -dot- IL>]

Robert,

There's a broad semantic gulf in this instance between the use of the terms
"rare exceptions" and "sometimes". The Vehicle Code of the State of
California (to give one example) contains thousands of laws which form the
normative "rules of the road". Just because a judge might rule that, given
an extraordinary situation with special circumstances, a driver quite
properly violated one of those rules *in that specific instance* does not
imply that the Vehicle Code, as a normative standard, is "cockeyed".

Most societies, most western societies at least, generally go on the
principle that "the exception proves the rule". This is a far cry from
saying that "the exception invalidates the rule".

And BTW, it was not my intention to "defend" Moshe. From what I've seen of
his postings, he is capable of quite adequately defending his own positions.
My intent was to lend my own support to the "concept" of the invisible writer.

Shmuel Ben-Artzi
sba -at- netmedia -dot- net -dot- il

>>(There are, of course, times when
>>you want to specifically call attention to a piece of scenery in and of
>>itself, but these are rare exceptions.)

>Let's be precise here.  Moshe suggested that technical writing be
>DEFINED as having an "invisible writer."  You defend him by saying
>that technical writing should USUALLY have an invisible writer, and
>make the analogy that, in the stage, one USUALLY does not want the
>scenery to upstage the actors.

>If something is both sometimes false, and also true by definition,
>there's something seriously cockeyed going on.

>        -- Robert

                  TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send administrative commands
         ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
       should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-