read it again, just in case ...
let's all learn about the importance of reviewing documents (aka QA/QC) BEFORE they are issued for public review and comment.
idea 1, author clarity ... if you are going to write something in draft form that may be ... oh - say - misinterpreted or ambiguous OR idea 2, line-by-line ... documents that are in draft form should be carefully reviewed - line-by-line - even if the document is 20 bajillion pages (or maybe just more than 300 pages) in length.
idea 3, reviewer responsibility ... if you are actually paid to review and comment on content in draft form, you are likely expected to edit (AND develop in final form) content that may be misinterpreted, ambiguous, or awesomely wrong.
idea 4, public responsibility ... if you (the reader, such as the public) read a document that has information that is oh - say - awesomely, entertainingly wrong, you must pass it along for others to enjoy.
[just another one of the gems
found while un-pack-ratting.
this is a keeper.]
found while un-pack-ratting.
this is a keeper.]
posted by shirlnutkin @ 5:45 PM
5 Comments:
Some R|Clients shoud read what R|Cat writes, since it might include notes about death-spew.
This is a good lesson, sometimes we are tempted to include crazy language like that in our writings, but eventually somebody reads most things that are written.
... well, just to make things clear, i was not on the project. at the time, i was working for the man with the title 'environmental analyst' (huh?), so i had all this corporate-america free time to read stuff like this (as a "public" member).
Ah, corporate America free time. I wish such a thing still existed. I work for an American Corporation, can you call our president/CEO and have him allot that to me?
it still exists - i'll let you know 'off-line' where!
Tremendously funny, horrendously tragic. I get criticized for being slow to email responses to customers - that post exemplifies the reason why I am methodical in reviewing the words I choose to 'type.' -g
Post a Comment
<< Home