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.
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."
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."
David
-----Original Message from Isaac Rabinovitch <isaacr -at- mailsnare -dot- net>-----
"As with most "incorrect" language, it's not a moral failing. It's one of those mistakes
humans make."
