Re: Writing vs. ??? TECHNICAL writing

Subject: Re: Writing vs. ??? TECHNICAL writing
From: Stuart Burnfield <slb -at- FS -dot- COM -dot- AU>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 16:34:40 +0800

I read the posts in favour of grammar and usage threads on techwr, and
they make good theoretical sense. Then I recall the grammar and usage
threads we actually get, and. . .

There is rarely a right answer to these brain-teasers. There are usually
wrong or incomplete answers, and these *always* get posted, confidently,
triumphantly, every time.

The signal-to-noise ratio in these threads is astonishingly low,
considering this is a list aimed at working writers.

After all the right and wrong answers, the best, the most useful answer,
is the one that says "find some references you respect and use them".
Look up the easy stuff in books and let's discuss the hard stuff.

It's indisputable that good writing is a prerequisite for good technical
writing, but writing should be the ground on which we stand, not the fog
through which we. . . well, I'm still working on that metaphor.

End of whinge.

(Now, where are the contact details for that fascinating Romanian
engineering conference. . .)

Stuart "the short-sigged one" Burnfield (slb -at- fs -dot- com -dot- au)

Previous by Author: Re: Online strategy: who should define?
Next by Author: CHAT: SPAmway
Previous by Thread: Re: Writing vs. ??? TECHNICAL writing
Next by Thread: JOBS: Writer/Editor at InterVoice, Inc, Dallas, Tx - LONG

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads