"See" and "Utilize," That Is, and For Example (doggerel)

Subject: "See" and "Utilize," That Is, and For Example (doggerel)
From: Melissa Hunter-Kilmer <mhunterk -at- BNA -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:13:07 EST

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Bill Sullivan <bsullivan -at- SMTPLINK -dot- DELTECPOWER -dot- COM> wrote:

Kent Newton opines: Since our job is to make our subject matter
understandable to the reader, I can't imagine using this form [v. for
vide, or see]. I think I'll stick to "see" and "refer to."

Bill Sullivan chimes: Yes, and make it "that is," not i.e., and "for
example," not e.g. But use PCT, DNA, UPS, and any and all
abbreviations applicable to your discipline or trade, with impunity,
ad nauseam. Does this make sense?

I rhyme:
Exempli gratia, id est, vide,
Q.E.D. and bona fide --
Nobody gets 'em. Why should we
Preserve the ambiguity?

Sure, use PCT and other
Helpful shorts; don't ask your mother.
Possibly explain them first
In the intro, if you durst.

Okay, whirlers, flame away.
I know that you love to play.
Rhyming's not my specialty.
I'll lurk now, ASAP.

Melissa Hunter-Kilmer
mhunterk -at- bna -dot- com
(standard disclaimer)

Previous by Author: Re: Is grammar fair game? (deep thoughts)
Next by Author: Ancestor worship (was Tech writing in Europe)
Previous by Thread: Re: PHIL: Tech Writing Dichotomy
Next by Thread: Software Development Tech Writing

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

Sponsored Ads