First, after reading the document it is not "essentially unintelligible"; however, there are areas within the document as well as all other type (IPC, MIL, etc.) documents that one can become confused over without proper guidance or assistance. This is not to be confused with "essentially unintelligible" Second, Rudy just wanted to make a point! Now, in answer to your question. How is a person supposed to rewrite something that is "essentially unintelligible"???? Use layman's terms, use one's own terminology, ask associates, ask those who would be using the document for their input, use common sense, make a rough draft of what you believe the contents should be (in your own terms) and pass it along to committee chair or other members in the privacy of the committee's forum. Franklin -----Original Message----- From: Dave Dixon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:48 AM To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Franklin D Asbell Subject: RE: Does anyone else on Technet find this situation beyond c omprehension? With all due respect.... How is a person supposed to rewrite something that is "essentially unintelligible"???? Dave -----Original Message----- From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Franklin D Asbell Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:43 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Does anyone else on Technet find this situation beyond c omprehension? Rudy, Jeesh, I'm thinking you made a point to the entire TechNet group, just not than the one you intended... Might I suggest, that in future submissions for ballot that you rewrite key areas you consider verbose or unintelligible into a format you believe is more effective, and offer that as an attachment to your ballot. Perhaps that would be more effective than saying NO - because I just don't like it!!! Franklin -----Original Message----- From: R Sedlak [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:35 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [TN] Does anyone else on Technet find this situation beyond comprehension? Just in case anyone still has any remaining hopes that the IPC might actually someday attempt to achieve something worthwhile, or perhaps attempt to minimize the confusion in our world, I offer this e-mail message which I received from the IPC in response to my negative vote on the proposed Immersion Tin standards. It is important to realize, to get the full flavor of this message, that the standard was submitted to me for my review with two options: 1. Accept as written, or 2. reject, with reasons given for rejection. I rejected, because the standard was written in a way which was essentially unintelligible, and I could not even figure out what they were trying to say. I received the following message in return. --------------------------------------------------- Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815 -----------------------------------------------------