Re: Slamming

Subject: Re: Slamming
From: Shorter Rankin <srank -at- PACBELL -dot- NET>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 00:05:40 -0800

Walker, Arlen P wrote:
>
>> We are technical communicators trained in
>> the art of communication. One would think that our electronic
>> community would exhibit more of our basic training than the
>> influences of the Internet as a whole.
>
> I think what some of us have said is that we *do* exhibit it.

Arlen, I agree with everything you say, yet I think you are missing
something. You qualify as a frequent poster to this list. My experience
is that long-running threads end with camps of frequent posters aligned
against one another. Nasty? No. Intense? Yes. Personal?
Well, we did have the messages which started 'with all due respect'.
I thought it was that exchange which prompted the original comment on
slamming.

Have you missed the predictability of this? A chi-square test on the
archives would show a statistically significant tendancy for TW A and
TW B to be aligned against TW C and TW D, I'll bet.

>... less frequently here than other places.
> A tribute, I would say, to our skill.

Or is it the fact that frequent posters have roughly equivalent
armament in the art of word-slinging? Besides that you know each
other too well.

> That flare-ups still happen I would say is an acknowledgement of our
> humanity.
>
True enough. But, there is a better way, I think, to end long-
running threads. Take 'typoz in resumes' as an example. What everybody
missed
was that both camps were right. The camps had allowed themselves to
become
polarized and they couldn't see it.

Robert P was right when he said [paraphrasing] that resumes are not
good
predictors of job performance. The lady with the mascera on the blouse
comment
was right when she said one should not show up at a job interview
bearing self-
inflicted wounds. If both camps are right why not move toward consensus?
This would require that someone drop the polarization.
Easier said than done.

> Any time you get 2500+ people together in a room, you're going to
> have toes stepped on. It's not possible to avoid that.

Agreed. A certain amount of conflict is just gonna happen. I'd even say
that
some conflict is healthy in that those of us who lurk learn more
when you frequent posters express yourselves fully. I wouldn't miss this
list for all the world.

> say "Ouch!" and "Sorry!" when necessary.
Yep. If you really want to see serious bloodshed visit the Windows or
OS/2 advocacy groups.
>
> Have fun,
> Arlen
> Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
> DNRC 224
>
> Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
> ----------------------------------------------
> In God we trust; all others must provide data.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
> If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.
>
Wishing all on the list a glorious Easter,

Shorter Rankin
srank -at- pacbell -dot- net
S * Rankin & Associates, Sacramento, CA

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Re: Happy Egredior Day
Next by Author: Re: Revision Control - NO! Documentation Management - YES!
Previous by Thread: Slamming
Next by Thread: [no subject]


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads