RE: Not Sure

Subject: RE: Not Sure
From: <Jeanne -dot- Keuma -at- ch2m -dot- com>
To: <DGoldstein -at- DeusTech -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:31:22 -0600

I apologize if I sounded as if I was insulting anyone who is and prefers
to be called a generalist! I just didn't know anyone who was (until
Diane replied! ;-) ). I've only heard it used for human resources
staff--HR Generalists. I agree it's not necessarily a bad thing and
doesn't imply ignorance. It just seems unspecific a title for people who
strive to communicate with clarity and accuracy... Diane's title,
"TECHNICAL communications generalist," seems more clear and specific
than "communications generalist," which connotes a wide variety of
disciplines/jobs from telephone customer service rep to
telecommunications sales/repair/design to public relations. (Our job
description does indicate technical editing with the ability to
"multi-task"--which seems akin to "generalist.")


-----Original Message-----
From: Goldstein, Dan [mailto:DGoldstein -at- DeusTech -dot- com]
Sent: August 15, 2003 5:07 AM
Subject: RE: Not Sure

Do you generally derogate generalized derogations of generalists, or
just Jeanne's? :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Margulis

I was responding to
Jeanne's generalized derogation of generalists, not to Tamara's concern.


Previous by Author: RE: Not Sure
Next by Author: RE: testing candidates
Previous by Thread: Re: Not Sure
Next by Thread: Re: Not Sure

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

Sponsored Ads