RE: WRONG!..... -ish?

Subject: RE: WRONG!..... -ish?
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: wanda <wetcoastwriter -at- me -dot- com>, Techwr-l <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:02:11 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wanda
> Sent: February-03-12 1:25 PM
> To: Techwr-l
> Subject: Re: WRONG!..... -ish?
> I can't believe that's it's Friday already. Whew.
> So I can get my two pennies in before the week ends. Yes, sentence one
> is grammatically correct. Yes, context will indicate whether one would
> recommend or warn/caution and that would affect the structure of the
> statement. And, like Suzanne, I am accustomed to structuring the
> information differently. I'm accustomed to tagging the information as a
> note/caution/warning with formatting to call it out. I'm also used to
> providing the action and issue (removing the cover causes this
> particular problem), recommended action (don't do it), and recovery
> actions in case you didn't heed my hand waving. It may result in more
> text, but it provides the information the user needs to avoid a problem
> and recover from the problem if they are reading this information too
> late in the process. [...]

In this case, I don't have a lot of room (or desire) to insert a NOTE,
especially not the way we/I format those (with a color change and an
icon and a surrounding box to make them stand out).

The mention of the wee protective (deflective?) covers is in
a table containing the one-liner summaries of the callouts
below a view of the appliance back panel. The other sentence in
that table cell said. "... not used in this application."

People wonder why I start threads with lo-o-o-o-o-ong posts.
It's because my short ones all end up needing an excess of
post-facto explanation anyway. :-)


The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.


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-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

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

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @

WRONG!..... -ish?: From: McLauchlan, Kevin
Re: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: kcbillb2
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Dan Goldstein
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Porrello, Leonard
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Dan Goldstein
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: David Harrison
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Cardimon, Craig
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Porrello, Leonard
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Dan Goldstein
RE: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Cardimon, Craig
Re: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: Peter Neilson
Re: WRONG!..... -ish?: From: wanda

Previous by Author: RE: WRONG!..... -ish?
Next by Author: RE: AP Writers are the best
Previous by Thread: Re: WRONG!..... -ish?
Next by Thread: RE: WRONG!..... -ish?

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

Sponsored Ads