Re: New slant: professionalism (long)

Subject: Re: New slant: professionalism (long)
From: Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- AXIONET -dot- COM>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:36:40 -0400

Heather Searl <SearlHL -at- SCIEX -dot- COM> wrote:

>As a fairly long-time active member of STC, I have had >occasion to meet and talk with many people who call themselves .technical writers. Believe me, I would not agree with their >assessment of the terms.


I'm sure you didn't meant to suggest that membership in the STC
demonstrates writing ability, but that is what your sentence seems to

In fact, the only requirement for STC membership is the money to join.

Whether or not anyone is an accomplished writer has nothing to do with
membership in the STC. I've tidied up after more than one STC member,
and I know several writers whom I consider my betters who refuse to
belong to the STC because they dislike the way it operates.

Like academic standing, STC membership is a paper qualification that has
nothing to do with actual ability.

Bruce Byfield, Outlaw Communications
(604) 421-7189 or 687-2133
bbyfield -at- axionet or bruce -at- dataphile-ca -dot- com

"Nor did I know I was being auditioned
For the male lead in your drama,
Miming through the first easy movements
As if with eyes closed, feeling for the role."
-Ted Hughes, "Visit"

Previous by Author: Elegance
Next by Author: Tech-Writers: The Age of the Profession
Previous by Thread: Re: New slant: professionalism (long)
Next by Thread: API

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

Sponsored Ads