Re: Sacred overgeneralizations?

["Parks, Beverly" <ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

I agree with you in general, Bill, especially about the "who's easier to
teach" stuff. But let's not discount the value of personal opinions. If
you claim software X will run circles around software Y, then I will
weigh your opinion along with everyone else's and perhaps make a
decision based on those opinions. The usefulness of the list would
degrade if we weren't allowed to post opinions. Just because someone
doesn't preface his or her comments with "In my opinion" doesn't mean
that they believe (and expect you to believe) that they are stating
facts.

Bev Parks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Burns [SMTP:BillDB -at- ILE -dot- COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 10:32 AM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      Sacred overgeneralizations?
>
> Let's revisit some of the hard stances we're seeing lately.
>
>         It is easier to teach an engineer to write than it is to teach
> a
> "writer" or
>         "technical communicator" to understand and explain engineering
> principles
>         and technology.
>
> > Stand-up training is always better.
> >
> > Stand-up training is the worst way to learn anything...
> >
> And some from the past...
>
>         x platform is better than y
>
>         a application kicks a** over b
>
>         HTML is superior to PDF
>
>         Great taste vs less filling
>
>         Floor wax vs dessert topping
>
> Waitaminutefoax! It's both a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
>
> I don't mean to pick on anyone, but I'm seeing some broad
> generalizations
> cast about on the list lately. We do ourselves a disservice when we
> eliminate alternative perspectives. As Beth Agnew pointed out, we have
> many
> options between extremes. Let's consider the ranges of possibility
> instead
> of locking our sights on the opposition du jour.