[no subject]

[Guy McDonald <guym -at- DAKA -dot- COM>]

I have clearly made the obvious known.  To put it another way....

Let's depart from picking apart spelling errors on this list. (please)

By no means am I saying that we shouldn't require writers to exhibit basic
skills (such as spelling).  I have to agree with the gentleman that pointed
out the difference between weighting spelling with other more important
skills.

Thanks for the note Susan, if you were confused then others were too.  It's
too soon to start a fire under my butt again due to miscommunication.
 After receiving a note from Tom Kiersted, it appears that is true.

Guy McDonald
guym -at- daka -dot- com

----------
From:   Susan W. Gallagher[SMTP:sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com]
Sent:   Thursday, December 28, 1995 1:53 PM
To:     Guy McDonald; Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
Subject:        Re:

At 1:14 PM 12/28/95, Guy McDonald wrote:
>Please, let's knock this stuff off.  Arguing about spelling is like my kid
> fighting over his toys in the sandlot.  Thank you.

>Richard is on the right track by focusing on the Certification issue.


But, Guy...
You missed the point. It's not *spelling*. There are two separate parts
to the certification issue.

1. Of what benefit is Certification?

2. What skill set are we certifying?

Both of these questions must be answered, and one is as difficult
to answer as the other. We may be able to determine that Certification,
in principle, is a good thing and that we should all advocate it, do it,
be certified, etc. But if we cannot identify the skill set that we're
certifying, all the fancy paper in the world won't help us. Likewise,
if we pin down the skill-set, but can't decide whether the certificate
will benefit us... Well... You see what I mean. The "what" is as
central to the issue as the "why".


-Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com