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 apologize if I sounded as if I was insulting anyone who is and prefers
to be called a generalist! I just didn't know anyone who was (until
Diane replied! ;-) ). I've only heard it used for human resources
staff--HR Generalists. I agree it's not necessarily a bad thing and
doesn't imply ignorance. It just seems unspecific a title for people who
strive to communicate with clarity and accuracy... Diane's title,
"TECHNICAL communications generalist," seems more clear and specific
than "communications generalist," which connotes a wide variety of
disciplines/jobs from telephone customer service rep to
telecommunications sales/repair/design to public relations. (Our job
description does indicate technical editing with the ability to
"multi-task"--which seems akin to "generalist.")
Jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Goldstein, Dan [mailto:DGoldstein -at- DeusTech -dot- com]
Sent: August 15, 2003 5:07 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: Not Sure
Do you generally derogate generalized derogations of generalists, or
just Jeanne's? :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Margulis
<snip>
I was responding to
Jeanne's generalized derogation of generalists, not to Tamara's concern.
