RE: The GUI shall do...

Subject: RE: The GUI shall do...
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: "Porrello, Leonard" <lporrello -at- illumina -dot- com>, "Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com>, "salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com" <salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:38:47 -0500

And 87 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Er... that _was_ the spirit in which you made that comment, right?

For the record, I use "shall" in asserting requirements that must be met, come hell or come high water (the product is not allowed out the door if these aren't met), "will" for requirements that better be met unless there's a really good reason not to meet them, and other less imperative formulations for nice-to-have items that get included in a requirements doc. I do this because that's the standard around here for product and engineering requirements specification. I've seen the same language used for municipal infrastructure contracts and the requests for tender that led up to them.

I also object (whine?) to the arbitrary and/or malicious destruction of value in the language, when words are destroyed through stupidity and laxness (or ignorance that WILL not be instructed). I don't object to changes that preserve and increase utility.

My latest pet peeve is people who CHOOSE to destroy the distinction between I/we and me/us.
Yet I'm not in the camp that objects to the use of "they" and "their" when we've proven unable to agree on "s/he","his/her", "hir" or any of several other attempts to have a genderless singular personal pronoun (and associated possessive).

So with which brush am I being tarred, today? :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Porrello, Leonard
Sent: January-22-13 1:08 PM
To: Combs, Richard; salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: The GUI shall do...

Does anyone else find it ironic that the same group that whines about word transformation also objects to the orthodox use of "shall"?

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.

See what's new in Doc-To-Help 2012 in a free webcast:

Read all about them:

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 @


The GUI shall do...: From: Chris Morton
Re: The GUI shall do...: From: Anne Robotti
Re: The GUI shall do...: From: Chris Morton
RE: The GUI shall do...: From: Combs, Richard
RE: The GUI shall do...: From: Porrello, Leonard

Previous by Author: RE: Page or screen?
Next by Author: RE: How does your team track document requests?
Previous by Thread: RE: The GUI shall do...
Next by Thread: RE: The GUI shall do...

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

Sponsored Ads