论文部分内容阅读
经过对《关于一九九三年国债发行工作的请示》一文的认真阅读,我认为:该文格式规范,题文一致,不落俗套,文字简约,意见明确,不愧为一篇写得好的范文。因此,我基本同意《秘书之友》1998年第5期登载的董汉庭同志《介绍一份写得好的请示》(以下简称董文)一文对该《请示》的评介。但是《秘书之友》第8期朱悦雄同志的文章《莫把“病文”作“范文”》(以下简称朱文),对该《请示》和董文的评介均提出了异议,认为请.示的作者和评介者把“文种”用错和认错了。董、朱两家的认识反差如此之大,其原因在哪里呢?
After a careful reading of the article entitled “Request for Issuance of Government Bonds in 1993,” I think it is a well-written format, standardized in writing, unconventional, simple in writing and clear in opinion model essay. Therefore, I basically agree with Comrade Dong Hanting's “Introduction of Good Written Instructions” (hereinafter referred to as Dong Wen) published by the “Friends of Secretary” No. 5 in 1998 on the “Request for Comments”. However, Comrade Zhu Yuexiong's article No. 8 of “friend of the secretary” made a disagreement on the comments on the “Request for Instructions” and Dong Wen's comments. The authors and reviewers used the word “wrong” and acknowledged it. Dong, Zhu two understanding of such a big contrast, the reason why?