>>
If what you say is correct, If I wrote a book about a langauge that you knew nothing about or did not have any experience with, are you saying that you could be an effective TE? I don't think so. Surely, you would be at the bottom of the list of candidates that would be qualified to do the job. i.e., you would be my last choice...
<<

The YOU I used here is a GENERAL/GENERIC YOU, NOT YOUR PERSONALLY...

Perhaps I should have replaced the word YOU with the word SOMEBODY...

Sorry for the confusion...


>John,
>
>Since our interesting discussion about Technical Editing was buried in the now-frozen thread, and since you apparently were prevented from responding to my last post, I am starting a new thread to continue the discussion.
>
>I am posting my last response with a new question, and including my previous post for context.
>
>--------
>John,
>
>>I think you mis-interpreted my comments. I was not talking about you specifically. Rather, the you I was using was the generic you..< bg >.
>
>At what point in the following paragraph did you switch to "generic you"? (bold added to help you decide)
>
>If what you say is correct, If I wrote a book about a langauge that you knew nothing about or did not have any experience with, are you saying that you could be an effective TE? I don't think so. Surely, you would be at the bottom of the list of candidates that would be qualified to do the job. i.e., you would be my last choice...
>
>>I think you would do well as a TE.
>
>Even if I didn't know the subject matter as in-depth as you said was necessary? My point originally, and now, is that in-depth knowledge of the subject matter is low on the list of qualifications, and I believe I can convincingly prove it to you.
>
>>I have seen your posts up here, and I think you know what you are talking about....
>
>Thanks, but sometimes it's just an illusion, as I mentioned earlier. :-) BTW, I'm still holding out the challenge. I think it would be kinda fun!
>
>>Are we cool now....
>
>Coolly watching the inbox.
>
>----- my original challenge -----
>
>John,
>
>>The stuff always has to be tested. And, a TE does more than just test code. You are over-simplifying the role of the TE.. Maybe my standards are just higher...
>
>It is clear (to me) that you do not have sufficient experience with me as a technical editor to accurately comment on my technical editing abilities.
>
>So, to help you gain that experience, I am proposing a win-win-win project for your consideration. Send me by email a couple of chapters of your upcoming book, or upcoming magazine articles or white papers, preceeded by an NDA if you wish. You can even seed the chapters with intentionally inaccurate information. A few days later you will receive my technical editor's markup. All of this will be done in private.
>
>Then, we can resume this thread from a more informed point of view.
>
>Win-Win-Win:
>1) You and your book benefit from my input.
>2) I gain from seeing your material before most others, and from honing my editorial and technical skills.
>3) UT'ers benefit from less hot air.
>
>Just one ground rule: If we resume the thread after this little project, I will be free to comment publicly on your writing skills (limited by NDA) if you comment publicly on my editorial skills.
>
>This is not in jest. I'll be watching my inbox.