Re: finally! a non-economics question!

Subject: Re: finally! a non-economics question!
From: Peter Neilson <neilson -at- alltel -dot- net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:52:18 -0500

Engineering's original likely said "map to" and the writer was told to
use a word that was not quite so much mathematical jargon.

On 11 Mar 2004 18:38:28 GMT, Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:

Yes, it's "with." Although, personally, I don't
associate with access buttons, they're not very
stimulating company.

Gene Kim-Eng

------- Original Message -------
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:16:08 -0500 Wright, Lynne wrote:
Ok wordsmiths...

I'm editing a manual by a writer who keeps using "associate to"... i've seen
it so many times, I can't tell any more whether its acceptable usage not...
as in the following statement:

"Use this section to associate telephone lines to access buttons."

it always "associate... with"?


ROBOHELP IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IN HELP AUTHORING New RoboHelp X5 includes all new features such as, content management, multi-author support, distributed
workforce support, XML and PDF support, and much more!

Purchase new Macromedia RoboHelp X5 by March 31st and receive a $100 mail-in rebate.

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.

RE: finally! a non-economics question!: From: Gene Kim-Eng

Previous by Author: Re: methods of reviewing documentation
Next by Author: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley 404 Project Information - RANT
Previous by Thread: RE: finally! a non-economics question!
Next by Thread: Re: finally! a non-economics question!

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads