What do you guys think of STCs new definition for technicalwriter?

[Beth Agnew]

I don't think "financial advisor" is any more specific than "technical 
communicator", so probably not the best choice to make your point. 
Especially when the goal of most financial advisors is to get you to buy 
whatever products will put money in _their_ pockets, so it's hardly 
"advice" at all. At least we do communicate technical stuff.

As I suggested before, we could wrap our heads around a profession of 
technical communication in which there are a slew of meaningful job 
titles, each one of them with a nice specific occupation description.

Given this and a few other threads we've been chewing on for the past 
week, I don't think the STC's problem is finding the right wording for 
the definition, it's figuring out what kind of an organization it is and 
what is it supposed to be doing for its membership. That question 
doesn't seem to have an answer yet.
--Beth

Bonnie Granat wrote:
> What I meant was looking at how the BLS or other federal government agencies
> handles occupation descriptions.  That's what the definition is for.
>
> If I agreed with the premise of this endeavor, I'd help you, but my brain
> does not recognize "technical communicator" as a meaningful job title.
>
> ----------
> <begin highly offensive and outlandish "rant">
> "It's very nice to meet you, Ben. Tell me, what line of work are you in?"
>
> "I'm a technical communicator, Joe. And you?"
>
> "I'm a financial advisor... now what did you say you did, again?"
>