I'm currently working on a research paper on how to alleviate outbound spam. As I was going through it in my head today, I started thinking about how difficult it can be to separate out real spam from false positives, that is, mail marked as spam by end users that isn't really spam. A false positive in regards to outbound spam is not the same thing as inbound spam.
Anyhow, as I was reading through my paper, I came to a couple of conclusions.
So how about you, readers? Anything ironic about your school days compared to what you are doing now?
PingBack from http://microsoft-sharepoint.simplynetdev.com/ironies/
That's not the passive voice.
Your example sentence isn't a good candidate for the passive voice for - it would be "The store was gone to by me" which barely sounds like English. You might regard it as a good advert for the rule, except in British English (i.e. *English* English, aka proper English; can you guess where I'm from?) the passive voice gets used all the time. But despite our love of the passive voice, no brit would use it in that particular context. (But I did just use it there: "the passive voice gets used" is in the passive voice.)
The passive voice means that the object is acting on the subject, rather than the more normal way round where the subject acts on the object. Or, to rephrase that last sentence in the passive voice: the subject is acted on by the object, rather than the more normal way round wher the object is acted on by the subject.
Again, that's a clunky example. But in British English, you would only avoid the passive voice there because it sounds ugly in that particular context. But that's by the by. Your example is in the active voice, it's just in one of the more wayward tenses.
I like your writing style, even if it would be defined as "non-techical." Pure technical documentation tends to be coma-inducing; telling a story and blending the technical details into it is perfect for a blog post.
We are told time and again to use the active voice for technical writing, but I have to admit, the net result is that the writing is less "meaningful" and less searchable. I don't know if that's be cause I'm more used to it, or if the English professor types are just trying to keep themselves employed. There was actually a similar discussion on our local NPR the other day, and it turns out that a lot of language "rules" are really just arbitrary anyway. If passive voice allows you to convey the meaning better, and in fewer words, I say we need to adopt a new standard for technical writing.