RE: Qualifications for an off shore writer?

Subject: RE: Qualifications for an off shore writer?
From: "Downing, David" <DavidDowning -at- users -dot- com>
To: "Bill Swallow" <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:22:56 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Swallow [mailto:techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:26 PM
To: Downing, David
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Qualifications for an off shore writer?

> I've discovered that a lot of Americans feel the same way. For awhile,
> was sending out documents for tech review as email attachments, and
> including three voting buttons on the emails -- "Approve as is,"
> "Approve with changes," and "Reject." (I was starting with one of the
> options provided in Outlook, "Approve; Reject," and embellishing it.
> of my very-American coworkers complained that "Reject" seemed overly
> harsh, and would make people reluctant to choose that option. So, I
> changed it to "Follow-up review needed."
> And I've run into many other Americans who'll tap dance all around the
> universe before they'll simply tell you they aren't willing to do
> something you want them to do (although past a point, I think we're
> talking more about passive-aggressiveness than politeness).
> While we're about it, I always try to be as gentle as possible when
> giving negative criticism.

I'm the opposite. I feel our language has become too soft, so much
that it causes confusion. Your example of "Reject" is a good one.
There's nothing wrong with the option to reject something. "Follow-up
review needed" might indicate a subsequent action, but of course
"reject" requires a re-write that would then need to go to review
until approved. Carlin's "shellshock" bit speaks to this well.


I agree. I didn't have any problem with "reject," and only changed it
because I was admonished to do so.

I've actually been dealing with an example of this over-softness of
language in my own life, regarding the proper term for my physical
handicap. When I was growing up, a person who had no vision at all was
"blind," and a person like me, who could see but whose vision was
significantly less than 20/20, was either "partially sighted" or
"visually impaired." To me, that terminology made things nice and clear.
Now, the word "blind" is considered to be politically incorrect, so
someone with no vision is "visually impaired." My understanding is that
the term "partially sighted" is now considered politically incorrect.
For awhile, the term was "subnormal vision," which was also accurate,
but I think that is also now considered politically incorrect.

Last time I looked, the politically correct term was "low vision," but
as someone pointed out awhile back on that other list that's now on its
last legs, that term sounds a bit suggestive. It also puts a limitation
on the kinds of statements I can make to tell people about my condition.
I have to say, "I have low vision," If I try to explain the situation
using a sentence that begins with "I am," I run into trouble. (However,
having said that, I realize it might be better to say I *have* a certain
condition than "I *am* something," because the latter suggests that
that's the sun total of who I am.

Actually, I don't care what words people use, so much as I care about
their attitude -- whether or not somebody's making fun of my condition.

And to end this on a lighter note, we have a short guy in our department
who likes to tell people he's "vertically challenged."

ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals.

Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control!

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.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:


Re: Qualifications for an off shore writer?: From: Downing, David
Re: Qualifications for an off shore writer?: From: Bill Swallow

Previous by Author: RE: Qualifications for an off shore writer?
Next by Author: Re: Qualifications for an off shore writer?
Previous by Thread: Re: Qualifications for an off shore writer?
Next by Thread: RE: Qualifications for an off shore writer?

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

Sponsored Ads