Re: Acronyms--RTFM

[Jason Willebeek-LeMair <jlemair -at- ITEXCHSRV2 -dot- PHX -dot- MCD -dot- MOT -dot- COM>]

Sorry to disagree, John, but, by removing the F, you rip away the
soul-wrenching angst communicated by the phrase and leave behind a dry,
lifeless bullet point.

RTM is an instruction.

RTFM is a cry of despair, welling from the depths of a writer's soul and
flung to the uncaring gods (your choice) above.

Or something like that.

IMHO, YMMV, ETC.
Jason

> ----------
> From:         Wilcox, John (WWC, Contractor)
> Reply To:     Wilcox, John (WWC, Contractor)
> Sent:         Monday, November 10, 1997 12:25 PM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      Re: Acronyms--RTFM
>
>  ----------
> From: Miark
>
> The expression helps builds solidarity among writers by boldly
> expressing
> the deep frustration that we experience when people waste our efforts
> by
> not
> reading our work, and then waste more time by calling tech support.
> Expressing that kind of depth requires the use of an expletive, so and
> leaving it out would make the expression fall flat. And being shop
> talk,
> we
> should feel free to use such expressions, with the comfort of knowing
> that
> we aren't hurting anyone. So not only does it build solidarity, it's
> therapeutic--like screaming in a closet.
>
> 'N its fun 'n stuff.
>
> Mike
>  -----------------------
>
> I see this horse isn't quite dead yet, so I guess it's OK to beat it.
>
> Consider the statement RTFM not as a matter of personal morality but
> as
> a tech writing issue:
>
> 1. Prime Directive: Consider the audience.  By including the F, you
> make
> a gross assumption about your audience, whether they be your readers
> or
> fellow writers.  You assume that they swear, or at least that they
> will
> have some appreciation for your use of it.  That may be true in your
> culture, but I don't think it's a valid assumption among an audience
> as
> general as either a) your readers, or b) TWs in general.  Expressing
> your frustration does not "require the use of an expletive."  Nothing
> does.  Well, possibly it would be required in order to "build
> solidarity
> among" street gang members, but among writers?  I think not.  If you
> consider yourself a good technical communicator, I would hope that you
> could find a way of communicating effectively with your audience
> without
> resorting to swearing at them.
>
> From my list of Secondary Directives:
>
> 1.  Be complete.  If you're sure the reader won't understand what
> you're
> saying without the F, by all means include it.
>
> 2.  Be correct.  Since manuals do not engage in sexual intercourse,
> RTFM
> conveys incorrect information.
>
> 3.  Be consistent.  Do you use the F elsewhere in your tech writing?
>
> 4.  Be clear.  RTM is clear.  Inserting the F forces the reader to
> view
> the instruction through a filter.
>
> 5.  Be concise.  The F increases the word count by 33% unnecessarily.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John Wilcox, Documentation Specialist
> Timberlands Information Services
> Application Delivery Group
> Weyerhaeuser, WWC 2E2
> Tacoma, WA 98477-0001  USA
> 253-924-7972  mailto:wilcoxj -at- wdni -dot- com
> (I don't speak for Weyerhaeuser, and they return the favor.)
>
> ~~
> Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
> Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
> Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
> Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.
>
>

Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
	http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/
Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.