Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: [SEAOC] RE: Thread on communication[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: [SEAOC] RE: Thread on communication
- From: thull(--nospam--at)smtplink.dsa.ca.gov (Hull, Thomas)
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 96 10:56:49 PST
>(message was delayed/ resent via power.net) > >Per previous discussion on the subject of communication: > >>I generally look for content... If you picture the person saying it with >their voice, >the meaning is the same... I spell words the way I pronounce >them and then run them >through the spell checker...I can design buildings to >resist earthquakes and wind >storms, ask me to spell correctly and I'll fall >flat on my face. >>Though I recognize the need for correct spelling for certain situations, it's >mostly >attorneys, insurance agents, and school teachers who are concerned >with dotting i's >and crossing t's, few of which I have much regard for. > >IMHO it is this type of attitude that causes others to look down on engineers. > When engineers act as if spelling and grammar are unimportant, it implies >that "numbers" are more important than words, i.e. communication with other >people. If your responsibilities relate primarily to number crunching and >verbal communication, then correct spelling and grammar are not so important. >But if you write specifications, reports, and client correspondence, then >these items are very important. While everyone makes occasional mistakes, if >a client sees too many language errors it may be concluded that the writer is >less skilled, and favor will be given to others with better presentation >skills (even if the writer may have adequate technical qualifications) - are >you willing to lose work because of this? Poor spelling implies laziness. >And errors in technical documents can change the intent or leave the meaning >up to interpretation - and potential litigation. > >Good communication includes anything which enhances clear understanding - poor >spelling or grammar confuse the reader's understanding and thus they represent >poor communication. You may not like attorneys, but they generally only get >involved once there is a misunderstanding due to communication problems - it's >not their fault that a report or specification is not clearly written. (And >teachers are only trying to help students learn to communicate properly.) We >should accept responsibility for our own errors and not blame other >professions. > >Overall, a well written document shows the reader that you have their >interests in mind - not just your own interests. > > Hi Sherm, I read your comments today about communication. I't seems like we are in pretty much agreement on most things. I never put down the need for proper spelling on any important or public documents, you made that up yourself. I think and know from experience it is very important. This thread of conversations originally started with someone putting down some email correspondence from someone in another country, Norway I believe. Obviously there english and grammar is not as good as ours but picture yourself trying to communicate with them in their language. I saw no reason to put someone down because of poor spelling. I understood what he was saying, even though words were mispelled. My comments were more aimed at whether it is something to worry about in these informal email conversations. I don't have spell checking on my mail program and am not going to waste my time, $2/min. is what I charge, to worry about whether I add an extra e to a word or whatever, we are exchanging ideas in this list server, not producing legal documents. I fail to see how this attitude degrades engineers. dennismc > > > >... ******* ******* ******* ******* >* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers Association of California >* (SEAOC) email server. To subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to >* seaoc-request(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message type subscribe. >* To Unsubscribe, send email to seaoc-request(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the >* message type Unsubscribe. You can type anything you like in the subject field. >* For questions, send email to seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org. >* Make sure you visit our web site at: >* http://www.seaoc.org/seaoc ****** ***** ******* ******* > > ... ***** ******* ******* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers Association of California * (SEAOC) email server. To subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to * seaoc-request(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message type subscribe. * To Unsubscribe, send email to seaoc-request(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the * message type Unsubscribe. You can type anything you like in the subject field ...
- Prev by Subject: Re: [SEAOC] RE: Thread on communication
- Next by Subject: [SEAOC] RE: SEAOC! Re: SEAOC! Don't Teach LRFD
- Previous by thread: Re: [SEAOC] RE: Thread on communication
- Next by thread: [SEAOC] Turn RCPT feature OFF