Re[2]: Certification Redux

["Walker, Arlen P" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>]

      And a good point at that. Reducing a complex issue to two stark,
      either-or positions is nothing more than an attempt to stifle
      discussion. It's a silencing tactic, as I learned in the last go-
      round of this debate, which is why I refuse to take part in the
      current incarnation.

Whoa there, Steve.

First, I didn't think "optional or not" was such a complex issue.
Cerification itself can be, I'll agree, but optional is just one small part
of the whole issue.

Second, "either-or" slightly oversimplifies my position, but I'll not
interpret that as silencing tactic ("Rats!" I hear you say ;{>} ). I said
there was little middle ground, not that there was none at all. (Go ahead,
check it out, I'll wait.) My point was that simply saying it's optional
doesn't necessarily make it so. It may be possible to construct it in such
a way as to *really* be optional, but I hope you'll pardon me if I remain
skeptical of that until it's demonstrated. (BTW, Becca, the PE example is a
good attempt. I'd forgotten that one. Still, I'm not sure where it fits in
this. After all, it has the force of law behind it in some areas, so it's
hard to consider it as an entirely optional certificate.)

Third, I merely stated my opinion on it. That's no more an attempt to
silence debate than the opinion I responded to was. I know you better than
to think you consider conflicting opinions as an attempt to silence anyone,
but I'm puzzled at where you acquired such amazing knowledge of my mind
that you can state unequivocably what my intention is.

Speaking for the record, I'd love to see the real issues on certification
discussed, not silenced. Like you, I'd gotten tired of people quoting
mantras so I stayed pretty much out of the last couple go-rounds here. I'd
hoped it would be different this time. Heck, I posted the summary and list
of open questions (which, BTW, I have already recieved some suggested
changes to) in attempt to steer the discussion towards issues and away from
personalities and rants. It's easy enough to give me flack for what I
actually say, Steve; you don't need to go making things up.

      As I implied in my post yesterday, I'm waiting for the STC report
      stating just what their position is on certification before shooting
      my mouth off. I wish others would do the same.

I will certainly refrain from critiquing the STC's certification position
until they officially take one. I haven't mentioned the STC's position to
this point (I *did* use the STC in a hypothetical example, but I thought it
was clear from the context that the example was only hypothetical; if it
wasn't, I apologize for the confusion). I don't see, however, the link
between the appearance of the STC's report and a discussion of
certification issues on this list. Are you saying we shouldn't discuss any
topic the STC hasn't taken an official position on?

The fact that the STC has taken one position or another is irrelevant
(though their reasoning in doing so is not).

Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html