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: It did happen on a Friday... From:Mailing List <mlist -at- ca -dot- rainbow -dot- com> To:"'karen_otto -at- agilent -dot- com'" <karen_otto -at- agilent -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:25:46 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: karen_otto -at- agilent -dot- com [mailto:karen_otto -at- agilent -dot- com]
> Sent: February 24, 2004 2:07 AM
> To: TECHWR-L
> Subject: It did happen on a Friday...
> But I only found time to share it today.
> Four design engineers approached me with a wording problem.
> "We have multiple master clocks," they said. "And one of them
> is more important than the others. There are also slave
> clocks, which are slaves to the masters. We call the most
> important master clock the Chief clock. Can we call the other
> master clocks Indians?"
I can see why you'd want to stay away from "Indian" clocks...
I can see why master and slave is insufficient.
I sneer at those who have any faintest sympathy for dumping
master and slave because of stupid, misplaced political
correctness (often a weasel phrase in itself...).
"Master" and "slave" are well-known and proper in the
context, so why not add to that scheme?
One "master", multiple "overseers" and a bunch of ordinary
slaves. Or, perhaps replace "overseers" with "trustees".