Re: Ain't nothin' wrong with me gramma'

["Christine M. Davis" <cdavis -at- CARBON -dot- DENVER -dot- COLORADO -dot- EDU>]

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with technical writers. I am a
tech writer myself, and I can say that most of them (I won't say us) are
more concerned with HOW something is said rather than WHAT is said. In the
field, tech writers generally are looked upon as literate secretaries and the
control we (here I say we) have over our work is our command of grammar. So
many tech writers develop tunnel vision about language and frequently
de-emphasize the ideas they communicate. I am new to this list myself, and
again, I'm sorry if you have a negative impression of tech writers.

On Tue, 8 Feb 1994, Chad Kaiwi Southern wrote:

> I sent a message to the tech writers list last week.  I must apologize
> for its incorrect context.  Obviously and thankfully I am not an English
> major.  I felt much like a politician.  People started attacking
> individual pieces instead of looking at the main point.  Interestingly
> enough, I was repeated my point back to me as a moral of a story sent
> by C. P. Campbell.  The point was don't get caught up in the active vs.
> passive dogma.  Unfortunately, my grammatical error received all the
> attention.
> I wrote before that I am no where near as intelligent or experienced as
> those who sent me responses.  For this I am realizing the term, "out of
> my league" which I always took as a dare in the past.  My little
> flirtation with the tech writers list now will end.
> I can't communicate with those who speak a different language so I won't
> continue to try.  Good luck with active writing, and thanks for the
> memories.