Discusses grammatical arthritis (an internal buildup of rules that hinders writing flexibility); four new "rules" (concerning "data is,""none are,""hopefully," and the restrictive "which"); attitudes toward English grammar; how to be a helpful editor; and where to learn about grammar. (SR)

Argues that the greatest value of technical communicators accrue not from style book editing but from "content editing." Offers suggestions for content editing. (SR)

Contrasts robotic editing with human editing (discussing descriptive grammar, periodic sentences, theme-rheme concept, right-branching, zeugma, and Irish bulls). Maintains that, for any editing that requires thinking, humans are always superior. (SR)

Summarizes a number of ways technical editors can develop an atmosphere of mutual respect in editing the writing of subject matter specialists. (TJ)

Discusses changes in the nature of an editor's work, resulting from computers, contract work, competition with computers, and forced collaboration. (SR)

Suggests that editors resist the common urge to squeeze paragraphs together to save space. Discusses the difference between writing and editing paragraphs, topic sentences, connectives, levels of discourse, what paragraphs do for the writer, how long paragraphs should be, and the flexibility of paragraph structure. (RS)

Makes suggestions for editing technical proposals. Discusses the marketeers, the hierarchy of hype, how to save days, managing story boards, expediting a laborious process, teaching engineers to write, writing incrementally, the art group, and the editing task. Argues that the best proposals come from starting to write early. (SR)

Muses briefly on topics related to workshops attended at the 1993 Conference on College Composition and Communication including stylistics, editing practice, communication versus art, and where technical writing belongs in academia. (SR)

Suggests that editors looking for work can approach companies with some unsolicited editing of the company's own annual report. Suggest what to look for when editing an annual report. (SR)

Argues that the best approach for technical editors is to abandon the language cops' billy club, listen to what the authors want to say, and give those authors friendly expertise, without rigid prescription or blanket condemnation. (SR)

Maintains that the goal of editing technical writing is not to resist incursions against "correctness" but to facilitate communication. Argues for letting authors use the words native to their own technical idiom. (SR)

Discusses ways an editor can cut out words to help the reader understand quickly. Discusses dead wood, redundancy, redundancy in thought, smothered verbs, false precision, editing and academia, and making copy smoother. (SR)