TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: "Obvious" warnings - drawing the line From:letoured -at- together -dot- net To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:46:39 -0400
In <3D4F0E40 -dot- 48FF648E -at- optonline -dot- net>, on 08/05/02
at 07:46 PM, Peter <pnewman1 -at- optonline -dot- net> said:
>letoured -at- together -dot- net wrote:
>> You understood what I meant. Of course if you want to make the argument that
>> you didn't understand, go ahead -- but writers who work on utility systems,
>> chemical plants, railroads, shipbuilding, military equipment, and more -- know
>> them quite well.
>>
>> They work and very well, unless the writer is a complete dummy taking things
>> to the extreme <s> -- which not only wouldn't get past the sign-off review,
>> but neither would the writer if he ever tried it again.
>
>Of course I understand what you meant. As others have pointed out it depends
>on who you are writing for. If he intended user is the general public than
>the old saying "stupidity has no bounds" is applicable. It is always a
>judgment call as to how far you take your warnings. Unfortunately, many look
>upon an accident as an enrichment opportunity. "It wasn't my fault, nobody
>told me I could break away if I walked out the open window from the fourth
>floor." In one case that I am familiar with, the worker removed a safety
>guard from the equipment and as a result was injured. The theory of his
>lawsuit was that the safety guard was too easy to remove and he was not
>instructed not to remove the safety guard.
That would come under the doctrine of comparative negligence... So the URL on
the lawsuit where the worker was successful is what?
-----------------------------------------------------------
letoured -at- together -dot- net
-----------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Save up to 50% with RoboHelp Deluxe. Get 2 great products for 1 low price!
You'll get RoboHelp Office PLUS RoboDemo, the software demonstration tool
that everyone's been talking about. Check it out and save! http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.