Originally Posted by
Der Amf
You're making some sweeping assumptions there, and got yourself tied in up knots.
No knots and no assumptions other than the very same ones you have come to. You appear not to have properly read the message I wrote (or even read it at all).
Originally Posted by
Der Amf
"Internal use" does not mean Top Secret For Your Eyes Only For Heavens Sake Don't Repeat This
I agree. That's what I said, isn't it. I said nothing to the effect that you are claiming. Read again what I wrote.
Originally Posted by
Der Amf
is just means this is a training document for the benefit of those in customer-facing roles
So it would seem, just as I said (in different terms) in my previous message.
Here is where I said it:
Despite the fact that the document is apparently supposed to remain confidential, i.e. "for internal use only", I certainly accept that the implicit inference of the servicing text is that it is information to be passed on to the customer and that perhaps the writers used the second person as a textual convenience.
Originally Posted by
Der Amf
and the use of the second person is because the training document is giving the trainee a script, a line for them to use when talking to a customer.
Quite possibly. That is one possible assumption. It is the one I came to in my earlier message, if you had actually read it.
Originally Posted by
Der Amf
Document: not for customer
Message: for customer
So it would seem. JUST AS I SAID.
Again, DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE?
However, the key point remains as I said in my summary paragraph which I will quote here:
Before any smarta3ses accuse me of nitpicking [or fail to actually read the message they are purporting to reply to], let me point out that I am merely observing the information available on the page and avoiding singling out one bit of it to the exclusion of the rest. It all counts, and a document tagged with "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY" really cannot be honestly, genuinely or meaningfully described as "a public recommendation by any standard", even if the information within it is presumably intended to be disseminated publicly by the recipients of the document, but without sharing the document itself.
P.S. Aaaand breath. Smile. It's ok. And we're speaking somewhat at cross purposes. We agree on the presumed intent of the document but my point was that, even the presumed intent is correct, it is still wholly and totally incorrect to refer to a "for internal use only" document as a "a public recommendation by any standard". By all means, the information contained within it is most certainly intended to be passed to customers but that does not make what we have in front of us "a public recommendation by any standard". It is a recommendation for internal users, which may be passed on to customers as appropriate.