What's in a Word? ME 4667 Postbag

Two letters in Model Engineer May 22nd Postbag took umbrage to Ian Martin's article 'An Experiment in Parametric Design', started in ME4664.

One critic said, 'Gibberish in any language is still gibberish' and the other concluded: 'I know it is cruel but authors really must write for their readership. Anyone can blind the masses by using jargon - politicians do it every day.'

Strong stuff, and unfair in my view because Mr Martin's article isn't gibberish or jargon, not guilty! As such stuff goes, his is a relatively gentle introduction to a difficult subject, admittedly not to everyone's taste.

Mr Martin uses terms from Software Engineering, probably unfamiliar on first contact, but surely ME readers understand other engineering disciplines have specialised terminologies and it may be necessary to engage brain to comprehend them. If 'instantiation' is gibberish, then so is talk of tailstocks, ER32, flute-cutters, cross-slides, half-nuts, drop-links, eccentrics, single-phase, and bastard files!

I feel for the editor of ME in cases like this, because what are readers interested in, and what's their level of understanding. Tricky! Model Engineering has always been a broad church, appealing to everyone from absolute beginners to high-end professionals. The editor can't please everyone.

ME and MEW strike about the right level for me by publishing a mix of material from simple to brain-bursting! ME wouldn't keep me if it concentrated on one subject aimed at an audience who insisted words could only be used within their Pocket English Dictionary meanings!

I vote for a mix of articles covering many subjects and don't mind being challenged by new ideas or language, even a strong dose of maths. How do others feel about technical writing - 'Up Jumped Baby Bunny' or 'The Critique of Pure Reason'?

Dave

A long time ago, an American politician said

"You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you will never please all of the people all of the time"

Not being a M E reader, cannot comment on the article, but not surprised that some didn't like it. Others will have enjoyed it and found useful no doubt.

I don't agree with all that is on the Forum; or in MEW, and am sure that there are plenty of folk who disagree with my posts.

We all have different experiences, which colour, subconsciously or otherwise, our viewpoints.

Without tolerance there would be no free speech, (And we see all too often, where that goes, and sometimes the loss of lives of those who dare to dissent )

If you don't like what's written or said,; either disagree civilly, or keep quiet and ignore.

Stephenson valve gear I understand, (I think ) Walschaerts is good, but don't understand it, so do not read long dissertations upon the subject.

I am not into CAD, so don't read read articles on it

Have to confess to being intolerant of rubbish or misleading advice.

I have recently closed a bank account because I dislike that bank's behaviour.. But having told them why, I leave it at that. If you can't stand the heat; get out of the kitchen!

The truth may be accurate, but be hurtful to some.

Live and let live..

Howard. INTOLERANT of Emojis!

Edited By Howard Lewis on 20/06/2021 16:04:34

I also thought the letters were a little harsh, with the author doing a good job in keeping the article and topic simple for most people to grasp the underlying principles. Seems people are very quick to complain about errors in drawings or poorly designed models but modern design methods like parameterization and linked 3D geometries don't find favour (at least if these letters are to be taken as the norm). If a designer uses all these CAD methods then models can be virtually assembled, the linkages tested and dynamically checked and drawings produced to a much better (building) standard than in the good old days of drawing boards. I for one enjoyed that article and found it informative, and make extensive use of parameterization, linked geometries, dynamic simulations, FEA and all other manners of jargon that you hear politicians say on a daily basis. (for Howard )

Another one who found Mr Martin's article interesting. It must be nearly 30 years ago that a chap at work was working on a parameter driven design, so this is not unproven technology. It might be beyond me at present, but if I don't try to learn I will never improve.

There are some who would like articles on how to sharpen your quill pen, let those with wholly negative comments try to write something.

It's easier to write a letter of complaint than an article. I for one found it interesting.

I just re-read the magazine. I have to say I've been finding Lukers articles excellent, the piece on superheaters was very useful (I've only just swapped out my copper ones for fully radiant stainless), the article on the Turbomotive was a good read and the piece on Training the next generation was very timely.

I think I'm right in saying D.E. Hockin was in the previous issue complaining as well (with no less than two letters in one issue). I don't recall them providing any articles or other positive input, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I read the article, though not claiming to have understood or learnt much. It was worth reading ! I but ME to learn and to that end it has taught me many things. The broad spectrum of subjects, mostly has something for everyone ! If you don't like the subject, DON'T READ IT, or don't even buy the mag. Noel

(I think that pre-dates American politicians by quite a bit actually).

Then there's that other quotation:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The easiest subject in the world is criticism

Not so easy and far rarer is constructive criticism