On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:06:46PM -0500, Bill Ricker wrote: > 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.
No, not well done. There was no real suggestion of offense or discrimination in Bill's post. There was nothing illegal in the post. The comment does nothing to advance the plot, i.e. the topic of this mailing list, which is Linux, not the ethics of human resources practices, nor the language habits of technology people. It's mostly just gratuitous preaching, and is likely to incite irrelevant arguments. As such I don't think it belongs here. I'm not opposed to discussing the politics of things that are relevant to Linux or technology, but this isn't. I'm not even against Gordon saying something to Bill, if he feels strongly that he should--it just doesn't belong on the list. Which I suppose is all I should have said in the first place... -=-=-=-=- [It is not illegal per se to use gender-specific language in a formal job posting (which this very clearly was not); it is the act of discrimination which is illegal. Gender-specific language simply invites discrimination law suits--not interesting unless the plaintiff can prove discrimination, with a preponderance of the evidence. This alone is very unlikely to be sufficient. You're just wise to avoid it to avoid getting sued, given the current climate.] -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
