atw: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: Gerunds rule OK
- From: "Silcock, Howard DR" <Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Austechwriter (austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)'" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:55:47 +1100
I'm sorry to see that this thread has degenerated into a slanging match as
it's a topic I believe is important.
At the risk of seeming pompous or self-important, I'd like to suggest that
we look at what it is in our posts and the way we respond to them that
causes this to happen.
I think this list can serve as a very useful tool for technical writers to
support each other, and I know I've benefited from it. But I think there's a
danger that we can treat each other's posts as material for us to
proof-read, evaluate or criticise, rather than attempts to communicate. I
don't think we should assume, for example, that it's OK to point out
people's spelling or grammatical errors, even if as technical writers we're
accustomed to doing that with other people's work. Do you make a habit of
interrupting conversations to point out that someone's split an infinitive?
I must admit that I have to be particularly careful about this, as a
self-confessed pedant, and know that I lapse from time to time. I certainly
apologise if anyone here has ever been offended by what I've said.
And what should we do when we're at the receiving end of this treatment? I
can't speak from experience, as people on the list have been kind to me, so
far at least. One effective response may be just to ignore it - but that
seems rather high-minded advice, particularly if the 'treatment' recurs
repeatedly. Or maybe point out what the offender's doing, but avoid getting
dragged into a fight. I don't know - anything I say probably sounds like
preaching. But I think we also perhaps need to consider the possibility that
there is something in what our antagonists are saying, even if they're being
obnoxious in saying it. For instance, I can't honestly agree with Chris
Lofting that Nigel's failure to understand his post is only due to his
(Nigel's) stupidity. Even though Chris's post was on a topic that I've
studied quite a bit, so that I had some appreciation of what he was getting
at, I thought it could have been explained more carefully - and Nigel's
reaction was at least feedback.
Howard
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
- » atw: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: Gerunds rule OK
