No subject

hold to a much narrower definition of a word than do
many other list members, so I guess this is going to
devolve into yet another pointless discussion over a
semantic difference. I am tired of such.
 
> My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel.
> Fred Ridder
> Intel
> Parsippany, NJ
> 
> 
> >From: Tony Markos <ajmarkos at yahoo.com>
> >To: Me Too <klhra at yahoo.com>,
> techwr-l at lists.techwr-l.com
> >Subject: RE: Rhetoric And Technical Writing?
> >Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:58:30 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >--- Me Too <klhra at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >...the actual use of training in rhetoric would be
> >applicable in only a small fraction of technical
> >documents. After all, technical docs are almost
> never
> >intended to influence ways of thought or persuade
> >people on how to decide things.
> >
> >Tony Markos responds:
> >
> >I feel this way also, but I have been wrong before.
> >Anyone care to estimate the percentage of time that
> >rhetoric would "come into play" in a tech comm
> >project?
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com