Re: No Divisiveness Allowed?

Subject: Re: No Divisiveness Allowed?
From: "Arlen P. Walker" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 12:13:00 -0600

Are TECHWR-Lers restricted to discussions about comma placements, or
can we pontificate on the complete extents of our profession?

Tell me what the "complete extents" are and I'll be happy to comment (yea,
verily, even to the point of pontification) on them.

I have heard tales of censorship, not Netiquette, but attempts to
placate those who lurk on the list with a lit fuse looking for a target.

Haven't heard what you've heard, so I can't comment on it. I can say that no
one's censored me (though many have objected to me, and not always without

Sure, some issues require diplomacy, but why set up any taboo?

Because some issues are "theological," generating much heat but very little
light. Why waste everyone's time and the list processor's bandwidth with YARW
(Yet Another Religious War). There are Jihads enough on the net, let's use our
space to do something positive.

Boredom is the true enemy of this list, or any other when rhetoric is

Boredome is *an* enemy of the list. So is a plentitude of irrelevance. If the
truth be known, the latter is probably a more serious danger than the former.
When the wheat becomes hidden in great quantities of chaff, threshing is no
longer cost effective.

I think we have much unresolved business to air. Like, is it too late to
improve our profession and image?

Yes, it is. ;{>}

BTW, is name-calling OK??


Have fun,
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 124

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
In God we trust; all others must provide data.

Previous by Author: Re: USAGE: # Symbol
Next by Author: Re[2]: In & Under & Taxes CORRECTION
Previous by Thread: No Divisiveness Allowed?
Next by Thread: Re: Re[2]: "Technical Writer" en Espanol and English

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

Sponsored Ads