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: We From:Bonni Graham <Bonni_Graham_at_Enfin-SD -at- RELAY -dot- PROTEON -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 7 Dec 1993 10:10:00 EST
Mark Levinson, lyricist extraordinaire, notes:
"Too easily, the word can tend toward irritating smarminess in pretending
to include the reader when it doesn't, or in pretending to include the writer
when it doesn't. ("Let's look at our next example.")"
OTOH, we (the real we) seem to be stuck between the rock of the
'clinical/editorial/royal we' and the hard place of 'It is recommended'.
Unfortunately, these are the only two alternatives I've seen here (or really
anywhere else, either). Brainstorming anyone (it's only partly cloudy here)?
Bonni Graham |
Technical Writer |
Easel Corporation, ENFIN Technology Lab |
Bonni_Graham_at_Enfin-SD -at- relay -dot- proteon -dot- com | flush, v. Align type to the
President, San Diego STC | left or right, thereby
| beating a pair of aces
NOTE: apparently my email address needs |
to be typed exactly as it appears here, | --Ezra Shapiro
punctuation and all, or the system gets |
upset. |
