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.
Subject:RE: To Cc or not to Cc From:"Cascio, Justin" <Justin_Cascio -at- tvratings -dot- com> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:01:18 -0500
<<Kathi Jan Knill [mailto:Kathi -dot- Knill -at- template -dot- com] gave the history of the
meaning of the term/abbreviation CC>>
There are many terms that have changed their meanings, and that doesn't mean
we should only use the term in its original meaning. I'm with those on this
list who say that CC has a specific meaning that differentiates it from
Ctrl+C, BCC, Xerox, and other terms/abbreviations/concepts that are synonyms
of copy, but much more specific. If you're talking about email, and you must
CC, not BCC, use CC. Maybe the first time you use it you can say "carbon
copy (CC) the email to whoever" and after that say "CC the email to
whoever." And while I've heard "CC John on this," I think that's rather
idiomatic, with the understanding there that John's the indirect object, not
that you're going to try to roll John through a typewriter with a piece of
carbon paper. Not likely to be misunderstood, except (!) to the non-native
speaker or in translation.
