Again, I am not saying the TE has to be as experienced as the writer. However, they need to have some technical proficiency. How else could they get the job done. All of these cites you give are nice from a theorhetical perspective. Tell me, have you ever written a technical book? I know Karl Peterson has. When you undertake that excercise, come back to me then and tell me what you think a TE needs to do.....

And BTW, what you cite below in no way invalidates my point. The fact is, I DO NOT lump TE's in the category of production, copy editors and the like...

>Hi John,
>
>Nice try counselor ;-)
>
>I think the answer to this is in the very same paragraph you were quoting from. Here it is in it's entirety:
>
>To begin with, a technical editor should not be responsible for verifying the accuracy of the technical content of a publication. That is properly the responsibility of someone on the technical side of the company (an engineer, for example). Editors should, of course, question any item they suspect may be incorrect, and ensure that the responsible person verifies its accuracy.
>
>Perhaps you'd missed Mrs.Weber's resume? Considering her many years of experience in the field, I think I'd be more likely to accept her definitions and references over yours in this matter ;-) Thanks for making me think and research the subject though.
>
>In addition, here's an excerpt from "The Levels of Edit" by
>Robert Van Buren and Mary Fran Buehler, Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology:
>
>One of the difficulties of technical editing, and at the same time one of
>the accomplishments, is the fact that it must deal with a tremendous
>variety of technical information. Certainly the technical editor cannot
>be expected to be an expert in physics, chemistry, electronics, and
>mathematics; yet he may work on manuscripts in all of these
>disciplines. Nevertheless, with a knowledge of the mechanics of
>writing and publishing, by the use of a great deal of logic mixed with
>some common sense, and with a certain amount of “editorial acumen,”
>he can enhance a technical manuscript to the benefit of both author and
>reader.
>
>A copy of the entire publication can be found here in PDF form.
>
>>OK, here is how flawed your reference is:
>>
>>On one hand, it says this:
>>
>>"To begin with, a technical editor should not be responsible for verifying the accuracy of the technical content of a publication. "
>>
>>Then, it says this:
>>
>>"Technical editing is really a quality control job. "
>>
>>Sorry, you cannot have one without the other...
>>
>>How would you reconcile these two statements???? I don't see how you can. I see alot of THEORY in the website that is not predicated in REALITY...
>>
>>Care to explain???
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Yes, TE stands for Technical Editor. That said, Technical Editors SHOULD be experienced with the techncial material they are editing.
>>>
>>>Hmmm... not according to this reference:
>>>
>>>Jean Hollis Weber: Who Needs a Technical Editor?