First Attempt:



There is a group of educated people who lay between being a specialist and the ordinary person on the street. Most technical writing is directed at these specific people. For an example reports are usually prepared by experts for consideration by a group, who together hold a wide range of individual experiences, but lack specific skill in the matter under consideration. Business can make mistakes if only speaking in terms of their specialization when working inside a group of people that don't understand the professional terms. Scientific knowledge is published in articles where mature reader's who aren't specialized on the subject can efficiently understand. That writing is a 'middle' range technical writing style.


This style is more normal than the other two writing styles. There is no extreme simplification, or over defined explanation. There are occasional references to the dictionary, but doesn't display rare words by preference. There will be graphs, equations, and drawings as needed but dont over power the text. A symbolic point will always be expressed in ordinary sentences.

Advantage for the course in technical English.

Middle style has the most uses in technical English. It's not overbearing and flowery to students, and it isn't upon the instructers shoulders to mark up papers with symbols rather than ordinary language. Most students have been trained in their pure technical communication of their professional field, such as in reports. Where the point is to use general principles of logic, sound composition, and correct language of their field. However, most times students are enrolled in classes are not specialized in those fields. But through the medium of a middle technical style, members of a mixed group can improve in their proficiency of writing, and speaking intellectually on any topic.

J. D. Thomas, Composition for Technical Students (1965)

Emerson on Good Use

??????????????????????????????????????????????? ummm......:

A person trying to connect a thought with the write words depends on his desire to stick to the truth. A person corrupt cannot speak truthfully, and when speaking without truth they become corrupt. One cannot interpet nature and imagery stops being created and old words are used because of selfish desires. Soon words loose their meaning, and writer's try to utter truths that are soon forgotten after a while since the do not use simple imagery of nature.

But those who use words to describe visible things are better in line with truth and God. When this happens imagination is alive with images and their intellectual process is more vivid.
from Nature, 1836

Gertrude Stein on Forensics

I think I've read into this a lot, but it made sense to me to write it this way but I could be horribly wrong:
Seems to be about an argument and the aspects arguments have:

Will he question others on her decision. If they give him any insight, he will be disappointed, and will wonder when will they come to an agreement. Furthermore, he should be better in finding someone else than going to her, adding to the problem, and ending back at the start. Others admire the actions taken.

Debates show commitment and stubbornness.
To understand it all, she takes her time.

Well what do you believe.
Do you believe in ease of understanding, or is it better to be rewarded for accomplishments?
Do you believe that others admire changing something something if it is confusing, have others pay for it and so they don't deserve any followers. Because this should be a given without an argument. Without opopsites one side becomes an annoyance to everyone even if it comes to an end. It's doubtful that in an arguement people really look at both sides.

She might as well remove herself from the arguement and be peaceful, because without her in it, his work wont get done and she gets her way.
There are no comments on this page.
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki