<VV> (the end!) Re: RE: Communique article rejections

[burkhard at rochester.rr.com]

H - 

Good post... I've no disagreements. I would rather an article have a 
point and a description of what was done on the car and why (and what 
the problems were), rather than a laundry list of mods with no data why 
changes were attempted and on how they helped or hurt.  The recent 
article (Craig Nichols's, I think) on the Milt Binion fuel injection 
was a good example of the way to do things.  

Let's move on. Thanks for the information and thoughtful replies 
throughout.

best regards-
Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Jensen, CORSA Executive Secretary" <corsa at corvair.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:57 am
Subject: RE:  Communique article rejections

> Hi--
> 
> <snip on the items we agree on>
> 
> At 09:26 PM 8/8/2005, Jim Burkhard wrote:
> >Heh heh... It sounds to me like maybe you were being a bit politic,
> >substituting the word "technical" in place of "illiterate".
> 
> Well, maybe. Since Mike and I both have technical backgrounds, we 
> both 
> understand what people are trying to say. And while our aim is to 
> retain 
> "author style," we are here to help people who make submissions 
> with their 
> articles... to help their articles be more appealing to more people.
> 
> Harry wrote:
> > > [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.
> And Jim replied:
> >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?
> Let me use an example: In the past, we've had submissions with 
> mind numbing 
> lists of modifications done to a person's Corvair. The one I have 
> in mind 
> was a feature article, not a tech article. We asked the author to 
> supply a 
> little more "hows and whys" to the list of modifications.
> 
> I can present the same data in different ways; extract facts and 
> figures 
> and insert them into a table which makes them more readable and 
> more 
> useful. I can make an article less technical by including more 
> photos and 
> text to the article and make it more interesting to more people.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> --H