[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Author Index (this month)][Thread Index (this month)][Top of Archive]

Re: It's what It's

Subject: Re: It's what It's
From: lyndsey -dot- amott -at- docsymmetry -dot- com
To: David Neeley <dbneeley -at- oddpost -dot- com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:40:22 -0500

David Neeley writes:


Certainly not a moral issue. It still makes me cringe, though, when it is so often produced by writing and editing professionals. Surely we will tend to give less scrutiny to what may be written quickly for an ephemeral email message. However, I am reminded of a motto from a training program my father came home with from a stint in Army Reserve summer camp about 45 or 50 years ago: "Practice does not make perfect unless you practice perfectly."

Well, I am sure that our writing is, like Mary Poppins, "practically perfect in every way" when we are producing something professional.
Writing well is difficult and takes time. No one wants to spend hours on an email.

As for what is "incorrect" language, I find that those uses which are ambiguous and stand in the way of clarity should qualify as incorrect sans the "quotation marks."

The trouble with criticizing the writing of others is that you set yourself up for criticism. For example, I might criticize the fact that you have used "which" instead of "that" in the sentence above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lyndsey Amott
www.docsymmetry.com
Winnipeg, MB R3G 2J3




Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: It's what It's: From: David Neeley

Previous by Author: Re: FONT STANDARDS
Next by Author: Re: It's what It's
Previous by Thread: Re: It's what It's
Next by Thread: RE: It's what It's

[Top of Archive] | [Author Index (this month)] | [Thread Index (this month)]

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

Sponsored Ads