TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Request for Submissions From:"NIVA Inc." <niva -at- MAGI -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:19:17 -0500
If my earlier posts have left NIVA's intentions or goals open to
misinterpretation by anyone on this list, please accept my apologies. They
appear to have been misinterpreted by Vester Scott. I intended to make the
call for submissions to Writer's Block clear and straightforward, indicating
the goals of our magazine, the circulation of WB, and the terms under which
we are soliciting submissions, and inviting any interested parties to view
the magazine on-line.
Mr. Scott has taken from this that "...NIVA does not strike me as an
organization that aims to promote technical writing professionalism but
rather one that aims to exploit the insecurity of the large base of
incompetent technical writers".
I would like to clearly state that we are not interested in doing anything
with what is supposedly a large base of incompetent technical writers. If
you're incompetent, I can't help you, and I certainly don't want to publish
anything you may (incompetently) write. If, on the other hand, you write
well, have something meaningful to say and offer the community of technical
writers, and have any desire to take advantage of a forum to do so, that's
I won't rehash what I have already stated in previous posts about our
intentions and hopes for the magazine; suffice to say that I trust the
majority don't share Mr. Scott's rather bleak interpretation of our
intentions. We ain't saints, but I think exploitation might be a tad unfair.
Be assured that I won't spend any more of the list's time on this issue (in
rebuttal or otherwise).