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.
Bill Burns wrote:
> This post is the second I've seen suggesting that Tom is
> preaching for censorship. In my mind, this insinuation is
> not only unfair to Tom, who was suggesting a *choice* for both
> audiences (those who like chat and those who don't), but it
> reduces the term "censorship" to mean any type of control
> over content, regardless of whether that control is justified . . .
And in another post:
> He made a suggestion, and it was greeted with nasty
> insinuations rather than tempered feedback. . . .
> (and he may not have had a problem with the comments
> that did appear).
> I was thinking more on the lines of a completely
> separate list--different name and different distribution.
> (Was this Tom's idea too, or am I alone in this?)
Thanks, Bill, for the support. Yes, that was my idea--
a completely separate list. I expect it would attract
some or most of the readers of the current list, or no
one at all, if there was little interest. The market
would decide, and that would be that. (Reagan's shadow
is long, isn't it.)
And yes, I am surprised that a focused alternative is
viewed as censorship. The analogy that comes to mind
is the scene from Star Trek--The Whales, where Spock
turns off the radio on the bus and the crowd goes wild.
My point--most people don't want every act to take place
everywhere it can. Recognizing that is not censorship, it's knowing
and being sensitive to the audience in front of you. This list
is large (Eric says 2500+), and I suspect most aren't
interested in a fair chunk of what happens here. Is it
so wrong, I wonder, to ask people to moderate their behavior
in a group gathered for a specific purpose?
(Another spin on the C-word issue is this--Censorship is
a hot-button word; there are other hot-button words to
describe people who refuse to stop being annoying. The
hot-button discussion could go both ways.)
Mike Bygrave writes:
> After all, on average you could safely say that there
> are only a dozen or so topics which seem to come
> up - and some of those annoy most of us (HTML conversion
> packages, for instance).
I think, Mike, this point makes my point. I'm not annoyed
by the 1000th comment about HTML, even though I'm
not interested in it right now.
Perhaps it's because I'm not on this list primarily
for entertainment. I'm here primarily for information,
and to talk with people interested in what interests me.
I like entertainment, but don't want playfulness (or anger)
to take center stage.
(Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments, Mike; you may not
have meant what I heard. But this is how the idea came
across, at least to me.)
Again, this is not about censorship or morality.
I just want a different room, where the air has a
different color and the conversation is more what
I want. If others want the same, it will happen. If not, it
won't, and I'll struggle along like most of us do, watching
a few take center stage and reading the 1001st HTML
help-me message with heartfelt sympathy.
And finally, to those who are interested--if we get
this list, we can stop talking about *all* of this . . . .
Regard to all,
TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-