Re: Gore orders "plain language"

["Huber, Mike" <mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM>]

Well, I haven't read the rules, but I assume the 72->6 is a prediction,
not a directive. Probably a bit optimistic.

If the rules address the way documents are created, it might help. My
guess is that, even if the writers involved just consider it permission
to be clear, much less an order, it could help quite a bit, at least for
a while. In the long run, though, those documents are long and unclear
for reasons, and if those reasons aren't addressed, the problems will
return.

I still favor the rule that I've heard was in effect in the Icelandic
government for a thousand years or so: Each session opens with a
complete reading of The Law. And the legislators have to stand for the
reading.

More poets, fewer lawyers.

---
Office:mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
Home:nax -at- execpc -dot- com


>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Bob Morrisette [SMTP:writer1 -at- sabu -dot- Eng -dot- Sun -dot- COM]
>Sent:  Friday, June 05, 1998 2:24 PM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       Re: Gore orders "plain language"
>
>Gore's latest "reinventing government" idea is to rewrite all US documents
>written before 10-98 by 2002. New documents written after 1-1-99 must
>be written in plain language. Gore said that rules with 72 words will
>be reduced to six.
>
>They have an interesting web site that contains examples and a document
>on how to write in plain language, www.plainlanguage.gov
>
>Anyone want to bet on how this project will end up?
>