<VV> RE: Communique article rejections

[Jim Burkhard]

Harry wrote:

> Hi--
> 
> We are looking into the submission by Joe, but without more information on
the other two, we don't know if indeed the 
>articles were tech  articles and we do not know why they weren't published.

That's fine, I wasn't asking you to do so.  I was just looking to have the
perception (among many) that the Communique has a bias against tech either
confirmed or refuted.  Happily, you denied it quite well :-)  Hopefully, all
those reluctant authors out there now have their fears dispelled.

> Neither Mike nor I want to 'dumb down' articles, but we DO want the
articles to be interesting to our readers. Because 
> of the technical  background of our membership, some of the submissions we
receive need 'work' to be publishable. 

Heh heh... It sounds to me like maybe you were being a bit politic,
substituting the word "technical" in place of "illiterate".  Sure, some
techie folks are a bit clumsy with the written word, but that's not a given.
But here's where you must have confused me:

> [Jim,] you say: "Certainly your comments support the prevailing wisdom is
that anything "overly technical" doesn't get 
> published." But my post says nothing of the kind. 

I wrote that quote you cite because of my interpretation of your words: "I
know of one in which the article was sent back to the author requesting
changes to make it less technical to make it more interesting to a greater
percentage of our membership". Did this sentence NOT mean that the article
was sent back to the author for dumbing down because it was too technical?
It sounds like that is exactly what you said... am I wrong?

> You ask: "Anyhow, does the Communique reject out of hand any 
> submissions 1) about commercial products  OR 2) from people who stand to 
> gain from the publication of the article?" Short answer: No. Longer
answer: 
> We would welcome tech articles of from Rusty, Ray, Duane, or anyone 
> else on their products if it has some (any) redeeming value to our
members. 
> We will not publish an article which SOLE purpose is to promote a product.

I am very glad to hear this!  Quite honestly Harry, I know there are people
with the opposite impression, so I'm grateful you've cleared it up as well
as assuring people that the Communique does not have a bias against tech.

> Finally, both Mike and I have had some posts from some well respected
Corvair people on how to improve the Communique by 
>finding volunteers to do this task or that. While the suggestions might
have some merit, those who offer the suggestions 
>are not interested in volunteering to do the tasks. CORSA is a member
supported organization. If you want to help CORSA 
>or the Communique, volunteer to help by sending an e-mail to either me or
Mike. We can put you in touch with the guys 
>with some credible ideas. 

That sounds great with me, Harry. Consider this that email. I for one would
be willing to do this:  I will help any bounced tech authors you refer to me
get their work into form more suiting to you (assuming this doesn't mean a
dumbing down). I do a good bit of technical writing and am willing to assist
anyone needing some article-polishing.

> The Communique is clearly a labor of love for Mike and I and some others. 
> If you really want to make the Communique better, consider writing an 
> article. We need tech articles. We will publish most everyone 
> we receive.

Sounds great to me, Harry! I can do that and I hope others out there take
you up on your promise as well. As I said in the last email, I know you guys
put a ton of effort into it and the results have shone clearly for the many
years you've been there. Thanks for that and the dialogue on here.

Best regards-

Jim