RE: STC is broken

Subject: RE: STC is broken
From: "Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com>
To: "Keith Hood" <klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com>, "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:37:49 -0600

Keith Hood wrote:

> > You could read what I said, rather than what you wanted me to have
> > said so that you could get offended about it.
> I did not get offended by it. I said I had no argument with
> your feelings or opinions. If now you will read what I really
> wrote instead of what you want it to read, you will see that
> I said in so many words I was not writing to castigate you. I
> don't know about you but I'm not angry or upset now, and I
> wasn't then.
> I admit I misunderstood your aim and I amend my statements -
> you did not individually insult and accuse of unethical
> conspiracy every doctor in Canada.
> Your remarks were directed at the guild that oversee doctors,
> not at the doctors.
> However, it still seems to me that you did accuse the guild
> of unethical conspiracy. That being the case, my worry
> remains. You really have made a public accusation of
> wrongdoing against some people, albeit a different group of
> people than I thought at first. And that could be a cause for
> possible concern about legal liability. Personally, I hope
> you get away with it. I don't like the idea of someone
> getting into legal trouble because of a post on this board,
> but I fear that it could happen.
> My intention, as I explicitly mentioned, was not to take you
> to task for a perceived slight of any relative. You may not
> wish to believe it, but my post was written in concern. As I
> wrote, my feeling was "Ye gods, does this guy know how much
> trouble he could get into over those words?" Nothing more.

Poppycock. If you weren't offended, angry, and upset, then you're a poor
communicator -- because your post about "the full awfulness" of what
Kevin said sure didn't come across as caring and concerned.

It did, however, reveal your woeful ignorance of both economics and law.
There is nothing whatsoever in Kevin's description of how the medical
associations work that isn't Econ 101, undisputed by any mainstream
economics professor or textbook.

And Lauren has already pointed out that -- at least in the US and, to a
slightly lesser extent, in Canada and other Western nations -- there are
no legal ramifications whatsoever to anything Kevin said. Not even
remotely close.

Technical communications advice: Don't think you can turn a veiled
threat into a "fear" and an accusation into a "concern" merely by
calling them that. And don't proffer judgments about law and economics
if you know nothing about either.


Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom


Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.

True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity!

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

RE: STC is broken: From: Keith Hood

Previous by Author: RE: STC is broken
Next by Author: RE: Please describe value of Information Mapping
Previous by Thread: RE: STC is broken
Next by Thread: RE: STC is broken

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

Sponsored Ads