5 ms·

I disagree. This is a fairly poorly-written persuasive letter, and we have ample evidence for its lack of persuasive powers. The letter opens with useless con

I disagree. This is a fairly poorly-written persuasive letter, and we have ample evidence for its lack of persuasive powers. The letter opens with useless content "This letter is written ..." which is self-evident. Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading. If I was writing a letter like this, and I wanted it to have some effect, this would be the first sentence: The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. Then I would omit everything else in the original letter except the request for staffing.

kohanz 11y ago
> Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading Let's hope the management reading the letter wasn't so fickle. Oh wait, hmmmmmm. > The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. From the point of view of the engineer, that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. An exaggeration. You're basically outlining the difference between engineers and marketers. I don't mean that as a sleight - perhaps the situation called for a bit of "marketing".
dtparr 11y ago
So, I certainly wasn't trying to claim that the letter was a well-written persuasive one. However, I was more shocked with the implication that engineering management can't be expected to read past the first line of a memo if it doesn't hook them. In most organizations I've worked in (generally large ones), the rank-and-file engineers/scientists are below-average communicators (a stereotype, I know, but it's been true). They choose the wrong level of technical detail for their audience (or send it to such a large cross-section of people that there is no appropriate level for everyone). They certainly make grammatical mistakes. It's up to engineering management (who are generally better communicators) to pull the salient bits out of the communication and then pass that up the chain in a more clear manner. I certainly can't imagine a manager going "well, Darren's letter that warned me of a likely loss of human life used 'insure' instead of 'ensure', so I'm just going to assume that the rest of it is drivel and go on about my day". Your way would certainly have been better. Related note, one of the best writing classes I ever took with regard to its effect on my current work was actually a journalism class. The notion not to bury the lede has been key as attention spans wane (apparently more than I'd realized).
delazeur 11y ago
While I agree with you about the difference between "insure" and "ensure," that's not a universally accepted grammar rule. I think the may even be in the minority; The New York Times, for example, uses "insure" for all instances.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  It does? I have a 5th Ed. New York Times Manual of Style and Usage right here and it clearly distinguishes between the two. Under the entries for both ensure (p 120) and insure (p 170) it gives examples of the other.
  - delazeur 11y ago
    Well, I guess that's what I get for believing my first Google hit for "insure vs. ensure." Nonetheless, I see a lot of highly literate people using "insure" for all cases.
tobltobs 11y ago
Sensational clickbaiting as a requirement for technical reports?
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  This isn't a technical report. There's nothing technical in here except for some jargon that doesn't belong.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    - If you believe that is not some kind of technical report, then the jargon doesn't belong there. - But how would you call it? Memo? If yes, isn't it a memo about an technical problem? Or an another way to ask: How to describe a technical problem without using tech jargon?
PantaloonFlames 11y ago
Exactly. It's urgent and important. Put the most important point first. Make it jump out. When I read it, it seems like a banal procedural artifact. No urgency. He was better as an engineer than a communicator.

kohanz 11y ago

> Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading Let's hope the management reading the letter wasn't so fickle. Oh wait, hmmmmmm. > The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. From the point of view of the engineer, that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. An exaggeration. You're basically outlining the difference between engineers and marketers. I don't mean that as a sleight - perhaps the situation called for a bit of "marketing".

dtparr 11y ago

So, I certainly wasn't trying to claim that the letter was a well-written persuasive one. However, I was more shocked with the implication that engineering management can't be expected to read past the first line of a memo if it doesn't hook them. In most organizations I've worked in (generally large ones), the rank-and-file engineers/scientists are below-average communicators (a stereotype, I know, but it's been true). They choose the wrong level of technical detail for their audience (or send it to such a large cross-section of people that there is no appropriate level for everyone). They certainly make grammatical mistakes. It's up to engineering management (who are generally better communicators) to pull the salient bits out of the communication and then pass that up the chain in a more clear manner. I certainly can't imagine a manager going "well, Darren's letter that warned me of a likely loss of human life used 'insure' instead of 'ensure', so I'm just going to assume that the rest of it is drivel and go on about my day". Your way would certainly have been better. Related note, one of the best writing classes I ever took with regard to its effect on my current work was actually a journalism class. The notion not to bury the lede has been key as attention spans wane (apparently more than I'd realized).

delazeur 11y ago

While I agree with you about the difference between "insure" and "ensure," that's not a universally accepted grammar rule. I think the may even be in the minority; The New York Times, for example, uses "insure" for all instances.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
It does? I have a 5th Ed. New York Times Manual of Style and Usage right here and it clearly distinguishes between the two. Under the entries for both ensure (p 120) and insure (p 170) it gives examples of the other.
- delazeur 11y ago
  Well, I guess that's what I get for believing my first Google hit for "insure vs. ensure." Nonetheless, I see a lot of highly literate people using "insure" for all cases.

tobltobs 11y ago

Sensational clickbaiting as a requirement for technical reports?

thrownaway2424 11y ago
This isn't a technical report. There's nothing technical in here except for some jargon that doesn't belong.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  - If you believe that is not some kind of technical report, then the jargon doesn't belong there. - But how would you call it? Memo? If yes, isn't it a memo about an technical problem? Or an another way to ask: How to describe a technical problem without using tech jargon?

PantaloonFlames 11y ago

Exactly. It's urgent and important. Put the most important point first. Make it jump out. When I read it, it seems like a banal procedural artifact. No urgency. He was better as an engineer than a communicator.