Re: redundancy

[Laurie Rubin <lmr -at- SYL -dot- NJ -dot- NEC -dot- COM>]

I am surprised your boss is being picky over a sentence that may avoid another
lawsuit!  As your boss already knows, just because we all know that you should
not use a lawnmower to do stupid things like the suer did, there will be some
bozo out there who will blame you for not being able to stop the mower when he
got too close to that brick wall!

Point in fact -- the lady who spilled hot coffee that SHE placed between her
knees while driving is actually getting hundreds of thousands of dollars and
McDonald's must print something about "hot coffee" or "will burn" on its cups.
(I guess I take some responsibility for my stupidity and that's why I never
sue and get rich off it!  Another thread elsewhere...)

Back to the matter, if I was the writer on the project, I, too, would clearly
state what is meant by complete control.  In fact, I would leave out "complete
control" and  just say:\

"Always operate at speeds that allow you to maneuver safely and easily (or
quickly) stop in case of an emergency."

Laurie
Laurie Rubin
lmr -at- syl -dot- nj -dot- nec -dot- com
NEC Systems Laboratory, Inc.
Princeton, NJ 08540
(609) 734-6017



> So what do you all think of this sentence?  Should the material after the
> "slash" (/) mark be deleted?  And is there ever a place for redundancy
> in technical writing?

> "Always operate at speeds that allow you to have complete control of the
> tractor /  and can maneuver safely or stop in case of an emergency."

> Probably not the  best sentence to begin with, but his feeling was that
> "complete control" would imply "maneuver safely. . . ."

> Pete

> -----------------------------------
> Pete Praetorius                      ,--O
> ppraeto -at- hubcap -dot- clemson -dot- edu          _ \<,_
> ppraeto -at- clemson -dot- clemson -dot- edu        (_)/ (_)