RE: RE:classification -- was definition. . .

Subject: RE: RE:classification -- was definition. . .
From: "Leonard C. Porrello" <Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- SoleraTec -dot- com>
To: "Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 13:43:02 -0700

You've gotten me wondering about my use of "synthetic". I used it in the
sense of "in contrast to analytic". However, I think my usage might be
redundant as any categories we create are bound to be synthetic. I think
I would have done better to say, "We should not use the same categories
to define roles/title as we do to identify different types of writing."

On the other hand (and "synthetic" aside), we call Shakespeare a "poet"
and "playwright" and Stephen King a "novelist". Their titles are derived
from what they produced. However, we have a clear and distinct idea of
what comprises poetry, play, and novel and how they are different from
one another. Not so with marketing writing, business writing, and
technical writing.

Leonard C. Porrello (who is compelled to argue against himself since no
one else has)


-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kim-Eng [mailto:techwr -at- genek -dot- com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:33 AM
To: Leonard C. Porrello; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: RE:classification -- was definition. . .

No, I was merely trying to offer an alternative description
for "synthetic distinctions" you were rejecting after you
opined that a Marxist approach was not cogent.

BTW, my distinctions are no less "synthetic" than anyone
else's, except that I am in a position to enforce mine in
my little corner of the universe by writing the company's
technical writer job descriptions and hiring the writers.

Gene Kim-Eng


----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonard C. Porrello" <Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- SoleraTec -dot- com>
To: "Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>; <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: RE:classification -- was definition. . .


I'm confused. Are you saying that I was trying to "declassify" other
technical writers?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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.
http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList

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

---
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 http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


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
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.


Follow-Ups:

References:
RE: Definition of Tech Writer, was STC is broken: From: Joe Armstrong
RE: Definition of Tech Writer, was STC is broken: From: Connie Giordano
RE:classification -- was definition. . .: From: David Hailey
Re: RE:classification -- was definition. . .: From: Gene Kim-Eng
RE: RE:classification -- was definition. . .: From: Leonard C. Porrello
Re: RE:classification -- was definition. . .: From: Gene Kim-Eng
RE: RE:classification -- was definition. . .: From: Leonard C. Porrello
Re: RE:classification -- was definition. . .: From: Gene Kim-Eng

Previous by Author: RE: RE:classification -- was definition. . .
Next by Author: RE: What about Technical Writer vs Communicator?
Previous by Thread: Re: RE:classification -- was definition. . .
Next by Thread: Re: RE:classification -- was definition. . .


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads