RE: Not Technical Enough

["Kieffer, Barry" <Barry_Kieffer -at- adc -dot- com>]

And allow me to throw another log on the fire. I used to work for a large
electronic measurement company in Portland where they employed more than 40
technical writers. 

I can not tell you the background of each, but one technical writer comes to
mind. Before she was a technical writer, she used to put set screws into
knobs. She is now a good technical writer, better then many of the
high-priced contractors that that company had hired from time to time. I do
not even think she had anything more than an Oregon high school certificate.

Where is this going? I have never seen any proof that your background has
any fig-diggaly thing to do with your success as a technical writer.

I have run in to many nose-in-the-air ex-engineers turned technical writers
that were no better then the nose-in-the-air Rhetoric PhD's turned technical
writers; and none of them were any better than the ex-knob assembler turned
technical writer (and she never had her nose-in-the-air).

My buck-three-eighty (adjusted for Friday)

Barry Kieffer


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Emory [mailto:danemory -at- primenet -dot- com]
Dan Emory writes:  <snip>
In response to Sarah O'Keefe's polarizing statement that English Lit majors
were better at tech writing that those with a technical background,
I rose to the bait and predicted that, in the next economic downturn,
for "obvious reasons" The English Lit majors will be out on the street,
wishing they'd settled for an academic sinecure or editing position.
</snip>