RE: Network Security Article Clarification

Subject: RE: Network Security Article Clarification
From: "Tracy Boyington" <tracy_boyington -at- okcareertech -dot- org>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:34:54 -0600

Well, I'm sorry you saw my post as a "sarcastic response" and an
"attempt to win argument points." It was not intended - I can assure you
that I didn't even realize I was having an argument. I *thought* I was
contributing to a long-standing discussion regarding whether one only
needs technical knowledge, or also needs other tech writing skills such
as audience analysis, planning, etc. (surely, Mike, you're not one of
those people who considers every difference of opinion an argument?). I
regret that my attempt at humor has caused anyone consternation. If you
found my previous post offensive, please erase it from your brain and
read this one instead:

Thanks, Andrew, for clarifying. It's an interesting topic, and one
that's important to many of us whether we really understand it or not.
Your comments made me wonder... do you think that your preferred tech
writing style could have contributed to this error in any way? Is
technical knowledge really enough, or in hindsight, is there anything
you would have done differently? I'm generally busy learning from my own
mistakes, but I like to learn from the mistakes of others as well. :-)

Who will use the subject line "HUMOR" next time so all will be aware
that they're supposed to be *entertained* by my vast wit, not offended.

Tracy Boyington tracy_boyington -at- okcareertech -dot- org
Oklahoma Department of Career & Technology Education
Stillwater, OK

>>> Mike Stockman <stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com> 12/06/01 10:00AM >>>
I think that depends on whether one wants to encourage people to
their mistakes freely with the community. If I received an attempt to
argument points after a post clarifying my own error, I might think
before letting people know about my mistakes in the future, whether I
thought it would help educate others or not. I'm not sure how that
the sarcastic response a "nice one."


On 12/06/2001 5:20 AM, Jane Carnall (jane -dot- carnall -at- digitalbridges -dot- com)

>Nice one! <g>
>-----Original Message-----
>"Could it be," Andrew pondered, "that I might have written this in a
>different way? A way that really made the distinction clear?" And as
>clouds over his head parted, a shining beam of light struck Andrew's
>noggin and he suddenly realized that it's not enough to simply *know*
>everything, you have to know *how to write it*. And that perhaps -
>I say it? - a process, such as one that included a review by his
>nitpicky geek friends, could have prevented this tragedy. I hear his
>heart grew three sizes that day. ;-)


Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of
your book. What are you waiting for?

Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: Re: Network Security Article Clarification
Next by Author: RE: Being Seen -- RT*M
Previous by Thread: RE: Network Security Article Clarification
Next by Thread: RE: Network Security Article Clarification

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads