Re: Semantic(s)

Subject: Re: Semantic(s)
From: Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Dana Worley <dana -at- campbellsci -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:48:57 -0400

Well, it's an arguable point to no avail. Kind of like arguing over
who's driving the new car to the store when all four tires are flat. ;)

Bill Swallow
Sent from my iPhone.

On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:20 PM, "Dana Worley" <dana -at- campbellsci -dot- com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Bill Swallow wrote:
>> Mute... I guess my subconscious really doesn't like it. ;)
> Actually, I thought "moot point" was a great example.
> A moot point is an arguable point, but most people use it to mean
> exactly the opposite. So
> much so, that about 50% of the all-knowing "panels" find the
> alternate use acceptable these
> days.
> My peeve is utilize.
> :) Dana W.

Use Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word, or HTML and
produce desktop, Web, or print deliverables. Just write (or import)
and Doc-To-Help does the rest. Free trial:

Explore CAREER options and paths related to Technical Writing,
learn to create SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS documents, and
get tips on FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION best practices. Free at:

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:

Semantic(s): From: Janet Swisher
Re: Semantic(s): From: Bill Swallow
Re: Semantic(s): From: Dana Worley

Previous by Author: Re: Semantic(s)
Next by Author: Re: Semantic(s)
Previous by Thread: Re: Semantic(s)
Next by Thread: Re: Semantic(s)

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

Sponsored Ads