Re: What's on topic (subtext: @-sign)

Subject: Re: What's on topic (subtext: @-sign)
From: Kat Nagel/MasterWork <katnagel -at- EZNET -dot- NET>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 09:12:00 -0400

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 16:47:09 EDT
From: mpriestley -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM
Subject: Re: What's on topic

Paul Race wrote:

>Better we discuss serious issues that affect most or all techwriters than
>waste time on the history of the @ sign.

Michael Priestley replied:
>Unfortunately, the @-sign discussion has nowhere else to go.
>So we get it by default. In an odd, sad sort of way, I can't
>think of anything that defines the _flavour_ of this profession
>more than the @ sign discussion. Not only do I have difficulty
>thinking of another list where the discussion would be
>more appropriate, I have difficulty imagining another list
>where the discussion would even take place. Outside of techwriting,
>very few people care about the history of the @ sign.

Kat Nagel adds with a sigh:
There are _two_ other lists which have discussed the history of the @
sign (and many similar topics---at length) in the last six months:
COPYEDITING-L and WordPlay.

If there is enough interest, I'll post the subscription information for
both lists. Assuming I can find them, of course. They're on one of these
archive disks...somewhere...


/| Kat Nagel
\'o.O' MasterWork Consulting Services Rochester, NY
=(___)= LIFE1 (techwriting/docdesign) katnagel -at- eznet -dot- net
U LIFE2 (vocal chamber music) PlaynSong -at- aol -dot- com


Previous by Author: Re: Topics, on and off
Next by Author: Re: contract language
Previous by Thread: Re: Re. Another Slaton spam
Next by Thread: Re. How to define what's off topic


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


Sponsored Ads