TECHWR_L topics revisited

Subject: TECHWR_L topics revisited
From: "Eric J. Ray" <ejray -at- OKWAY -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 08:26:57 -0500

Mark and all,
Good point! I wasn't as clear or exact as I should have

I was trying to explain that I don't see, for example,
Frame questions as being as far afield as Windows 95.
"How do I send a fax through Windows 95" will generate
an immediate rant from me about inappropriate use,
while a question about building an index in Frame
won't, necessarily.

Without a doubt, product specific questions should go
to the correct list--probably not TECHWR-L. I'll be
somewhat tolerant of directly related issues (indexes
in Frame) and completely intolerant of other ones
(using cc:Mail). There are some product specific issues
that do belong here, but most don't.

ejray -at- okway -dot- okstate -dot- edu

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: TECHWR_L topics
Author: Mark Levinson <mark -at- SD -dot- CO -dot- IL> at SMTP
Date: 7/28/95 10:40 AM

Eric, I love you but in inviting product-specific DTP and word-processing
discussions on techwr-l you are, in my opinion, opening Pandora's box.
There are separate, helpful lists for FrameMaker, MS Word on PC, MS Word on
Mac, WordPerfect, and other DTP/WP applications. There, people
interested in a specific application can find more expertise than
techwr-l can offer, and without bothering others whom the specific
application does not interest.

The volume of messages on techwr-l is already causing complaints and
drop-outs. Why swell it with messages that could better be directed

||- Mark L. Levinson, mark -at- sd -dot- co -dot- il -- Box 5780, 46157 Herzlia, Israel -||
|| - Death to fanatics! - ||

Previous by Author: TECHWR-L Topics
Next by Author: typograpical conventions
Previous by Thread: Re. Writer/editor relationships in revisions
Next by Thread: Re: Kernighan and Ritchie notation contentions

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads