Re: CHAT: Job Postings

Subject: Re: CHAT: Job Postings
From: Stuart Burnfield <slb -at- FS -dot- COM -dot- AU>
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:20:47 +0800

I think the responses so far have been a bit hard on Dan. The topic
may have been on the borderline, but he made a fair effort at stopping
straying any further.

The Subject line was informative. People who've expressed objections to
job postings have been told very briskly to exercise their Del key in
future. The word 'CHAT' in the Subject line was a reasonable courtesy
to people who don't like and don't want to read messages about job ads.
He was careful to note that he wasn't intending to flame anyone. Apart
from that lone 'twit', Dan's tone wasn't rude or personally critical of

I'd have liked to see this develop into a discussion -- or maybe just
a chat -- on "job ads as technical communication". As the saying goes,
you should be careful what you wish for, in case your wish is granted.
What message does the ad give about the company? The job? The person
they're asking for? Is it the impression the employer intended?

Remember that job ads benefit both parties. The employer wants the right
techwhirler. Techwhirlers want the right job. We all benefit from well-
written ads.

Dan pointed out a common piece of fluff in job ads. He didn't savage
anyone's ad in particular. As I recall he contributes good stuff to the
list, and hallelujah, he doesn't have a 90-line sig. Let's give him a
bit of slack this time.

Stuart Burnfield
Functional Software Pty Ltd
mailto:slb -at- fs -dot- com -dot- au

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
Search the archives at or search and
browse the archives at

Previous by Author: Re: hiring an indexer
Next by Author: Re: Is it just me? S/W doc question
Previous by Thread: Re: CHAT: Job Postings
Next by Thread: ATM vs TrueType

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

Sponsored Ads