Re: redundancy

["harold (h.o.n.) floysvik" <hal -at- BNR -dot- CA>]

I'd leave it in. For one thing, you are refining what you mean by "...
complete control...". For another, given the predeliction for litigation
we face in these modern times, I'd think about putting in
MORE details about what is meant by complete control.

Has anyone thought about suing the parents of the idiot, for not preparing
him for the real world?

...Hal

======================================================================
In message
"redundancy", ppraeto -at- HUBCAP -dot- CLEMSON -dot- edu writes:

> Re:I am presently working for a manufacturer of lawn mowers.  Today the boss,
> Re:while editing a manual in print, asked my opinion of a sentence that he
> Re:feels is redundant, yet he's wondering if leaving it in might be better
> Re:from a legal standpoint.  One of the main reasons for the manuals is to
> Re:protect the company from law suits.  For instance, one person sued the
> Re:company for not warning him that he should not use the machine for a hedge
> Re:trimmer -- he lost some fingers.  Now all manuals have a statement that
> Re:says that the mower is to be used solely for cutting grass.
> Re:
> Re:So what do you all think of this sentence?  Should the material after the
> Re:"slash" (/) mark be deleted?  And is there ever a place for redundancy
> Re:in technical writing?
> Re:
> Re:"Always operate at speeds that allow you to have complete control of the
> Re:tractor /  and can maneuver safely or stop in case of an emergency."
> Re:
> Re:Probably not the  best sentence to begin with, but his feeling was that
> Re:"complete control" would imply "maneuver safely. . . ."
> Re:
> Re:Pete
> Re:
> Re:-----------------------------------
> Re:Pete Praetorius                      ,--O
> Re:ppraeto -at- hubcap -dot- clemson -dot- edu          _ \<,_
> Re:ppraeto -at- clemson -dot- clemson -dot- edu        (_)/ (_)
> Re: