Re: Messages. . .

[Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW -at- LBL -dot- GOV>]

>   A number of subscribers have expressed frustration at how our job
> is perceived by others -- with prejudice to overcome before we even
> start, the worst thing we can do is shoot ourselves in the collective
> foot by letting self-discipline slip.

However, we could also shoot the profession in the other
foot by perpetuating and amplifying an image of editors as
peckish pedants who do nothing but pick typos, and who, in
so doing, view themselves as sentinels protecting society
from the barbarian hordes.

I like a well-turned phrase and respect spelling, grammar,
and punctuation as much as the next technical communicator.
However, one must recognize that the networks are usually
(though not necessarily) informal, shoot-from-the-hip media --
not professional publications, much less the archival
literature.

What's more, it is my considered opinion that well-meaning
netters who flame the mechanics of a posting without saying
anything about its content are a plague upon the network.
In addition to coming across as gratuitously nasty, they
inhibit participation -- the kiss of death in an inherently
participatory medium.  Misc.writing went through such a bad
stretch of this kind of thing that one of the initial
enthusiasts -- an engineer who helped found a writing group! --
quit for a while in disgust.  I'd hate to see that happen here.

So I beg of you, *please*, when you find a mechanical mistake
in a posting on this or other writing-oriented newsgroups,
laugh it off as a case of the proverbial shoemaker's barefoot
children and move on.  Critique the mechanics only upon
careful consideration, and then in the gentlest and most
constructive manner possible.  Preferably by private e-mail.

Yours for peace in the family,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"