On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> wrote: > I happen to agree with your implicit agenda (gender equality and/or > anti-sexism),
Good so far ... > but ... uh oh... > not your reaction. I thought Gordon's was a measured and conditional reaction, with a touch of humor. Rather than flat out flame someone (the firm, Bill's friend, &/or Bil H)l, Gordon asked who was the source of the fossilized phraseology, the job-offerer (illegal) or the email-or (merely inadvisable), so he could new which to discount. Bravo, well done. And Kudos to Bill H for (quasi-)apologizing promptly. Since he's not protesting, your defense suggests this hits a little close to home ? > The usage above is traditional, > and language patterns are habitual and unconscious, and mostly hard to > unlearn, especially with age. There are many things that were still traditional when we Boomers were born that i can't endorse with silence in this 21st Century ! It may be inappropriate to correct an octogenarian when they use a 30-year out-of-date label or euphemism (once considered politically correct, now considered deprecatory), but if it's in the context of an offer of employment, no, there is no age exempt from correction. If you're in the game, you play by the rules. I *might* not be quite as old as Bill H. (although I might be!), but I am quite old enough to be discriminated against in employment for being to old to learn change etc. (and run up the insurance pool costs etc). I resent that, and will not give someone a free pass because of that unfair stereotype against the us the not-young. We're professional learners of new technical terminology ... new terminology for colleagues shouldn't be hard. -- Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
