🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C17HDo.CDC@unx.sas.com> saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Leonard Paul Olszewski) writes:
>
>In article <ELIZ.93Jan20215452@august.ai.mit.edu>, eliz@ai.mit.edu (Elizabeth Willey) writes:
>|>
>
>[stuff deleted
>
>Indeed, this is true; unfortunately, this is hardly possible. Anyone who
>writes technical material in one draft produces very bad technical
>material. I usually work with three drafts. In the first, I try to get
>everything in, don't worry too much about the words, and understand the
>overall structure is open for negotiation. In the second, I try to get
>all of the factual errors corrected, add any omissions, fix the
>structure, and start to polish. In the third, I eliminate any remaining
>factual errors (with any luck), and I lay the final concise, clear,
>consistent wording into place. Then the editors get it and straighten it 
>out 8-).
>
Or in my case, the engineers get it and rip its guts out. I have
to shunt my stuff through at least three levels of technical
heirarchy, before the policy people take their shots.  Very tricky.
I like to write the first draft, and read (and rewrite)    
subsequent drafts at different times of the day. If I liked it
a 9, and still like it at five, it's a go.

Tracy