Re: emacs documentation: what's active voice, passive voice?

[David Combs]

In article <a4abd6f0-a643-4ad7-828a-befd245a3ba3@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Russ P. <russ.paielli@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 4, 11:48 am, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote:
>> > For technical writing, I favor active voice where appropriate, but in
>> > some cases I think passive voice is preferable. Consider, for example,
>> > "The parameters were perturbed, and the test was run again." I could
>> > rewrite that in active voice as "We varied the parameters and ran the
>> > test again." But what if there is no "we", only "I"? Then I would have
>> > to write "I varied the parameters and ran the test again." That just
>> > doesn't strike me as good style for a technical paper. The point is not
>> > who did it but that it was done. What difference would it make if a
>> > monkey did it, as long as he did it right?
>>
>> Maybe the parameters might be less perturbed at being varied by a monkey
>> than by your good self.  Who knows?
>>
>> > Russ P.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
>> ;-)
>
>I realize that you are kidding, but to perturb a parameter means to
>vary it slightly.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory

But if you preturb a sleeping dog (or rattlesnake), you
get bitten.

David