Re: Robert Plamondon's comments re: writers who R not good self-editors

Subject: Re: Robert Plamondon's comments re: writers who R not good self-editors
From: Robert Plamondon <robert -at- PLAMONDON -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 09:14:57 PST

Wolf Lahti writes:

>Then you'd likely end up with a writer who can't spell or even run a spell-
>check program. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to expect perfection, at
>least in spelling, on a resume; it is, after all, such a simple thing to
>get right. A resume has to present the very best a job-seeker _can_ present
>(just as a person taking a driving test is expected to do his or her best
>driving).

Your analogy is flawed: very poor driving will still land you a driver's
license, so long as no actual laws are broken, and you don't jump the
curb too many times.

In any event, you are making what I consider to be a false conclusion:
that people who are erratic spellers are incapable of performing in
our industry. This is not my experience -- some of the best and brightest
people I've ever worked with could not spell to save their lives.

Some writers create perfect, highly polished resumes over long
periods of time. Others dash of a highly targeted resume to catch
a fleeting opportunity. The latter writers exhibit valuable and
unusual skills: an appreciation of tactics and a willingness to
work very quickly, for example.

Not that I *encourage* spelling errors, but I feel that one or two
minor errors on a resume signify nothing. (Besides, what do you do
when the agencies gratuitously rewrite everything that crosses their
desks, generally damaging them in the process?)

-- Robert

--
Robert Plamondon * President/Managing Editor, High-Tech Technical Writing, Inc
36475 Norton Creek Road * Blodgett * Oregon * 97326
robert -at- plamondon -dot- com * (541) 453-5841 * Fax: (541) 453-4139


Previous by Author: Re: Robert Plamondon's comments re: writers who R not good self-editors
Next by Author: Re: TW on the development team
Previous by Thread: Re: Robert Plamondon's comments re: writers who R not good self-editors
Next by Thread: Re[2]: Unintentional attachment??


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads