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.
I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with Arlen. I don't mind at all those
occasional announcements about a new RoboHelp class, or people who
reference something they've put on their own website. But this Scott guy
never stated honestly and upfront that he was extolling the virtues of HIS
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE. And I am certainly not impressed by his citations
of alleged true believers.
Until the first spam comment appeared, I had no idea that I had read
anything other than a friendly message from one tech writer on the list to
the rest of us, wanting to share info about a neat site he'd found. After
finding out it was his own site, I immediately thought, "What a slimy
fellow he is!" There is no way to defend the intentionality of his
deception. He could have saved himself a lot of grief by simply displaying
a bit of ethical self-awareness.
Truth is, I don't care how many great contributions he's made in the past.
You seem to be going very gently with him, when you have previously tossed
other blatant violators (e.g., the Fathers Day website promoter) off the
list - rightfully! - without an apparent twinge.
My vote is to at least bar him from the list for a couple of months. We're
all grown-ups here, and have agonized over the ethics of what work samples
we feel okay about taking to the next potential employer, how to give
credit for stuff found elsewhere, etc. Scott displayed a real lack of
ethics - not just a momentary lapse of judgment. I really don't think
gentle admonishments are in order in his case. If he didn't know better,
he certainly should have.
That's my two cents' worth. No, I'm not having a bad day. I have never
heard of Scott Gray until today. I just have strong feelings about
choices, consequences, and accountability.
- Marilyn Baldwin (mlbb -at- capgroup -dot- com)
From: "Eric J. Ray" <ejray -at- RAYCOMM -dot- COM> AT Internet_Gateway on 07/16/98
04:26 PM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU AT Internet_Gateway -at- ccmail
cc: (bcc: Marilyn Baldwin/CDS/CG/CAPITAL)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: LEARNING TOOL (30-day free trial!!!)
[snip from Arlen Walker]
Eric speaking:
My last note was sent before I saw the "testimonials", and yes,
I'd agree that they cross the line.
As I've said on the list before, commercial plugs in the context
of an ongoing discussion are acceptable--when brief and to the
point. Gratuitious plugs are not, and I'm inclined to agree that
this has moved out of the realm of appropriate commercialism.
Scott, with that, could you please take it offline?
