Re: phrasing of unavailable options

["Parks, Beverly" <ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Barb Ostapina [SMTP:Barb -dot- Ostapina -at- METROMAIL -dot- COM]
>Sent:  Thursday, November 06, 1997 7:37 AM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       Re: phrasing of unavailable options
>
>I think you have a good point, James. I, too, am generally opposed to
>printing possible futures. In the situation where I had to do it, however,
>it was in a record layout guide sent to customers and was done at the
>request of the technical support people. Apparently, the sales group
>published the feature although it wasn't available and the tech people were
>tired of getting calls about it. This is why I chose the phrasing "planned
>future option." Plans change. "Will be implemented..." implies too much
>certainty for me.
>
>===========
>I agree with you that "will be implemented" implies to much certainty. In
>fact, I'd bet money that the particular feature I was talking about is never
>implemented. Intentions are good but manpower is low, and more important
>things get priority above non-existent features.
>
>"Planned future options" is good; though, I think I like the sound of "future
>feature" better. Reminds me of the old television show called _Creature
>Feature_, which showed classic monster movies and such. <G>
>
>Bev Parks
>parksb -at- emh1 -dot- hqisec -dot- army -dot- mil
>
>
>
>

Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
	http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/
Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.