>Avoid, above all, the kind of jargon that tries either to dignify nonsense with seriousness (Working in an empowering environment, a topic discussed at a recent Economist conference)
I can see why I need to reach for the Wayback Machine to read this great style guide. In the modern world, giving this example is far more trouble than it's worth. People do get touchy about challenges to their carefully promoted jargon, and now they are on the twitter.
The book has almost identical content from what I recall. I think they may have admitted defeat on the use of "he" for a hypothetical person of arbitrary gender.
A lot of style guides are behind firewalls these days. I'm not sure all the reasons but it's probably some combination of concerns about revealing somewhat sensitive info and saying things in ways that some might find controversial.
More difficult to link to as well. Obviously not impossible if you can find it on the Internet Archive, but not everybody thinks to look there and sometimes you just have to get lucky.
I can see why I need to reach for the Wayback Machine to read this great style guide. In the modern world, giving this example is far more trouble than it's worth. People do get touchy about challenges to their carefully promoted jargon, and now they are on the twitter.