>
No, I've never written a book. The thread caught my attention so I've researched the subject a little in order to understand the arguments.
>

Yes, well... I have done a little more than "research" it over the past few hours...< s >...

>
I've found documentation that states that the editor should have a general idea about the subjects they're editing, but not in depth knowledge. Have you found any legitimate documentation to support your views?
>

Once again, very nice from a theorhetical standpoint.... When you get some "real" experience in this arena, look me up...

As far as legitimate documentation, I find that to be a rather insulting comment on you end. You are entitled to ask, but when you think about it, who are you to debate me on this issue. You have only researched the thoery for the last few hours. I on the other hand, have dealt with publishers for the last 5 years... My views are the body of REAL experience. So, with that said, I don't think your piddly little reasearch over the past few hours mean squat.

As I am fond of saying... between the theory and the real-world, the rubber has to meet the road. When the job gets done, we find that we end up bending the thoeries a bit.

Think about the theory of database normalization, and how a database ends up being designed. Get my drift...





>>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...
>>