At 59 I'm oldest in my current team though not by much, next are 49 and 51. We have also several youngsters under 30 and three current/former apprentices who are 18-19.
I'm increasingly finding myself having to explain what to me are common cultural references. OK, dim as a Toc H lamp might belong with my father's generation but the dead parrot?
One of relative youngsters, 28, has just gone off on a ski holiday in Austria with her German boyfriend. Former apprentice, 19yo girl articulate and educated to at least GCSE level, then asks 'Is Austria near Germany'. Next door country says our skier. I enlarged with mention of Hitler's origins and cultural reference to The Sound of Music. This didn't get me beyond a vague recollection of Maria's opening scene - The Hills Are Alive etc. She'd simply no idea what i was on about.
Mind you the one who's gone skiing looked completely blank at my alluding, over staff resignations, to Lady Bracknell and To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.. She's an English Grad from University of Reading who you'd think might at least be on nodding terms with works of Wilde.
Does anyone else have this experiencing?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 3 Mar 19 at 17:04
|
I know where Austria is, and its WW2 references, but I have no idea about the sound of music,.
The "to loose two" reference is not well know in my age group circle either.
I think you are suffering from being civil service institutionalised
|
The Lady Bracknell one isn't exactly arcane I don't think it's civil service jargon.
I have this every Saturday morning, when I volunteer in the community shop. One of my co-volunteers is 14 (doing his voluntary for the DoE awards) and I have to explain nearly everything I say. (Yes I know this is communication failure on my part, but it's not my job to keep him ignorant and he's a nice lad).
This week I mentioned we had been to see Steely Dan on Monday. "Who's he?" was the response.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 3 Mar 19 at 18:07
|
>>
>> "Who's he?" was the response.
>>
...he's Donald Fagen now, isn't he?.......
;-)
|
...nothing in those references that eludes me (though I have entirely happily avoided The Sound of Music to date).
My amazement at what people know is regularly surpassed by my amazement at what they don't..........
|
>> ...nothing in those references that eludes me (though I have entirely happily avoided The Sound
>> of Music to date).
Ditto, I have never seen it, have no interest init and probably only accidentally seen 30 seconds, I manage to avert my eyes and ears to something else when that swell of music and panavision/tecnicolour zoom appears.
>> My amazement at what people know is regularly surpassed by my amazement at what they
>> don't..........
Personally I was aware, of the references but only through the fantastically over the top acted 1952 film. Wouldn't dream of seeing it on stage.
|
How about 'A handbag?'. From the same play?
|
...all together now......... A handbag!!!!??........
|
>> I know where Austria is, and its WW2 references, but I have no idea about
>> the sound of music,.
You seriously have no idea of the basic plot line and the tunes from the musical?
I'm genuinely surprised that anybody of broadly same generation as me could have avoided it as a child.
|
>> You seriously have no idea of the basic plot line and the tunes from the
>> musical?
>>
>> I'm genuinely surprised that anybody of broadly same generation as me could have avoided it
>> as a child.
Clearly you made insufficient effort. And lacking in resolve and stamina
|
>> Clearly you made insufficient effort. And lacking in resolve and stamina
I actually quite liked it. My parents had a record of the main songs. Not the original cast one. That cost 30 bob and Dad thought the 15/- Music for Pleasure version with session singers just as good.
My Sister and I pestered until we got taken to The Lounge Cinema in Headingley to see the film. Deal though was that we'd leave after the wedding as Mum thought we'd be disturbed by the bit where they hide in the churchyard before escaping to Switzerland.
Sis and I sat tight and threatened with mayhem if she dragged us out Mum let us stay. We got a rollocking afterwards though.
I still love Edelweiss and Climb Every Mountain.
The Lad loved it too. Birthday treat one year was to go to London and see the theatre version.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Mar 19 at 22:15
|
>> My Sister and I pestered until we got taken to The Lounge Cinema in Headingley
>> to see the film. Deal though was that we'd leave after the wedding as Mum
>> thought we'd be disturbed by the bit where they hide in the churchyard before escaping
>> to Switzerland.
Ah well you see, the drawbacks of living in the provinces. I was taken to see How the west was won in original three projector cinerama........
|
A cultural reference. Bromptonaut will get it.
A long time ago, in the city of Munich, the inhabitants were having a big problem. There was a massive increase in the number of dogs residing in the city. Not only were thousands of dogs, but they were BIG dogs.... real hounds to be exact. Anyway, the people of Munich bunched together and decided they would solve the problem by driving all the dogs out of the city and into the hills. So one day, they all grouped together and forced all the hounds out of the city and into the hills, thereby solving their problem.
However, this action proved disastrous for the neighbouring town of Lieden. Lieden was a leader in the manufacturing of paper and the big paper mills provided work for many. As the hounds in the hills began to get hungry, they descended upon the small town of Lieden and were soon running a riot! All the shops were broken into as the dogs searched for food. As Lieden was much smaller than Munich, they didn't have the manpower to force the hounds out of the town and all the inhabitants decided to go to Munich and complain. As they were leaving their homes, suddenly a tremendous noise came from up on the hill, where the paper-mill was located. As all the residents were in the process of evacuating, they were puzzled as to who was running the mills. Suddenly, an old man spoke up, claiming he knew the answer. He took a deep breath and said:
¥
¥
¥
¥
"The Mills Are Alive With The Hounds of Munich!"
|
>> You seriously have no idea of the basic plot line and the tunes from the
>> musical?
>>
>> I'm genuinely surprised that anybody of broadly same generation as me could have avoided it
>> as a child.
>>
I’m 48, so a little younger and obviously know the ‘Hills are alive’ song, but have never seen the film and have no idea of the plot. I thought it was set in Switzerland. I’m aware of the Dead Parrot sketch, but that’s also before my time. I’m. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the whole thing. We didn’t really watch television togethr as a family anyway, or indeed much television at all, and I imagine Monty Python repeats, if they existed, were past my bed time anyway ;) So, I wouldn’t be in the slightest bit surprised if someone in their 30s hadn’t heard of either, never mind in their 20s
What did get me and my brother round the tv was the arrival of a Sinclair Spectrum. Christmas 1982 from memory. 48k, rubber keys :)
|
>>What did get me and my brother round the tv was the arrival of a Sinclair Spectrum. Christmas 1982 from memory. 48k, rubber keys :)
Similar age here and me and my younger brother had a few all-nighters playing the Speccy first, and then a few years later the Amiga.
|
The dead parrot sketch is 50 years old this year
That might as well be the middle ages to ages to an eighteen years old. How well were you acquainted with first world war era comedians in 1969?
|
A youngster had to tell me what a PS2 was years ago and I had to tell my (degree holding) daughter that Luton wasn't inside the M25.
I've been known to say 'more often than a w****'s drawers' to blank looks and used the 'to lose one' in reference to a twice divorced relative.
An old girlfriend got me to the sound of music by telling me it was a war film - I suppose she was right, although I willingly went to gone with the wind and regretted every minute.
|
>> An old girlfriend got me to the sound of music by telling me it was
>> a war film - I suppose she was right,
What a truly evil deception.
|
Not knowing any youngsters, I indulge in correspondence with someone a decade older than me. Faintly interesting cultural references and quotes we've discussed or just used in the last two weeks are listed below. Would younger people know these too?
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
"Now hast thou but one bare hour to live
And then thou must be damned perpetually"
Il Miglior Fabbro
Audrey Niffeneger
"the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me"
The trouble with Verlaine was he was always chasing Rimbauds...
|
Without looking them up, not a clue on any of them.
|
>> The trouble with Verlaine was he was always chasing Rimbauds...
WOOOOOSHHHHH
|
>> Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
Is the only one I'd recognise. Gist is about event Y following X and therefore being caused by X.
Similar to 'correlation is not causation'.
|
>> The dead parrot sketch is 50 years old this year
>> That might as well be the middle ages to ages to an eighteen years
>> old. How well were you acquainted with first world war era comedians in 1969?
Not sure about comedians but I'd a nodding acquaintance with music of WW1 and after listening to 'These You Have Loved' and Saturday Night is Music Night with my paternal Grandmother. They also cropped up on the RBL Festival of Remembrance which my other Gran regarded as compulsory viewing.
Perhaps there's a difference there. My generation gathered as a family round the television. We saw stuff like Dad's Army, When the Boat Comes In and various other plays and films covering events from earlier in 20th Century. The Good Old Days was another window into the past (we used to see the producer, Barney Colehan in the village newsagent - he lived just up the road from my parents).
Nowadays with a telly or PC in every room there's no linger that shared experience.
|
>> Does anyone else have this experiencing?
Its called getting old, for you as you suggest they are 'common cultural references' to them it's ancient history in some cases the things you mention were decades before they were born. They wouldn't even think to look about the things you mention.
They no doubt no all sorts of music and cultural references that you wouldn't know about. I expect you did when you were that age talking to your parents generation.
Not having a dig but you do have a thing for using obscure phrases and examples. You perhaps do it without realising. Like I said not a dig just an observation.
|
Ps, I've never seen the sound of music either. I'd rather watch paint dry.
|
How do you know if you if you haven't seen it?
|
There's many things I've not done, but I know I wouldn't like. Eating ground glass, eating dog poop, watching musicals etc probably a few more on the list as well. Can't think of many more right now though.
|
I’m 63 and never heard of that ‘lose parent’ sketch.. Or Steely Dan. But I remember Desperate Dan and cow pie.
I saw the S of M when initially released. With my parents, in Amsterdam, one Easter. It was snowing outside. Sailed from Hull on the Norwave with North Sea Ferries.
|
>> I’m 63 and never heard of that ‘lose parent’ sketch.. Or Steely Dan.
You may not not of heard OF steely dan, but you have heard them.
|
...I do hope Manatee wasn't drawn into detailing the back-reference after which the group was named.......
:-O
|
>> ...I do hope Manatee wasn't drawn into detailing the back-reference after which the group was
>> named.......
>>
>> :-O
Probably the less said about that the better.
The Dan has been the soundtrack of my married life, one of the few things I listened to regularly both then and now. I'd be hard pressed to pick a favourite track. Aja maybe.
The musicianship on most of their records is if anything too perfect, they were very fussy about sound and their albums are a great test of a record player (there were some rubbish CD transcriptions in the 80s though).
The encore at Wembley last week was a rollicking Reelin' in the Years. Elliott Randall, the guitarist who played the solo on the original studio recording, came on stage to join in. Videos have appeared on youtube...
The sound doesn't do it justice of course: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1tlGIk3LU
Earlier, Steve Winwood came back on stage to sing lead on Pretzel Logic.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zpXHz8-qo
|
>> >> I’m 63 and never heard of that ‘lose parent’ sketch.. Or Steely Dan.
>>
>> You may not not of heard OF steely dan, but you have heard them.
>>
That’s exactly my point re Rogers and Hammerstein. They are part of our culture and so pervasive that you simply could not know at least some their music whether you liked it or not.
|
>> That’s exactly my point re Rogers and Hammerstein. They are part of our culture and
>> so pervasive that you simply could not know at least some their music whether you
>> liked it or not.
But you can avoid watching their movies.
|
True, although I tend to try an watch good stuff of all genres.
Did you know “You’ll Never Walk Alone” was written by R and H for the musical Carousel?
|
>> True, although I tend to try an watch good stuff of all genres.
>>
>> Did you know “You’ll Never Walk Alone” was written by R and H for the
>> musical Carousel?
>>
No I didn't, probably because I have never seen Carousel, and I cant abide "you'll never walk alone".
|
>> and I cant abide "you'll never walk alone".
>>
....can you abide "Abide with me"......?
;-)
|
>> >> and I cant abide "you'll never walk alone".
>> >>
>>
>> ....can you abide "Abide with me"......?
>>
>> ;-)
Indeed, sung that with gusto at Wemberleigh. (the real one, not the new fake one)
|
>> >> True, although I tend to try an watch good stuff of all genres.
>> >>
>> >> Did you know “You’ll Never Walk Alone” was written by R and H
Everyday is a school day, I didn't know they were Liverpool fans.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 4 Mar 19 at 12:24
|
>> That’s exactly my point re Rogers and Hammerstein. They are part of our culture and
>> so pervasive that you simply could not know at least some their music whether you
>> liked it or not.
What a difference a few years makes. I'm 66 and know the references in 'The Importance of Being Earnest'.
I've heard of Steely Dan but I'm hanged if I know what he sounds like. Any relation to England Dan? Same for R & H. The answer is that my tiny mind doesn't process music at all well, such that I try and avoid listening to music. I can shut it out but it makes it really difficult trying to follw TV or film scripts where music is played over the words all the time.
Mrs H likens it to colour blindness, but with sound. I'm pretty good at tracing rattles and other noises in vehicles though.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 4 Mar 19 at 12:36
|
>> I've heard of Steely Dan but I'm hanged if I know what he sounds like.
He, is a group
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA
>> Any relation to England Dan?
No he is a duet
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA0Knw7O5r4*
*I do a very very very good Karaoke of this.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Mar 19 at 10:37
|
I guess that even if you have never seen the film you would recognise all of Rogers and Hammerstein’s songs and I guess that says something.
Quite like a musical myself. Chicago, Cabarett, West Side Story, all great films, La La Land’s got lots of cars in the opening sequence - you might like that :-)
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 3 Mar 19 at 23:09
|
>> I guess that even if you have never seen the film you would recognise all
>> of Rogers and Hammerstein’s songs and I guess that says something.
Having never watched the film I'm not sure I recognise roger and Hammerstein's? What type of thing are they in?
, La La Land’s got lots of cars in the opening sequence - you might like that :-)
I'm not sure, what channel is that on?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 3 Mar 19 at 23:23
|
It was on Freesat a week or so back. The score was very sub-Rogers and Hammerstein, in fact the whole film was inferior. Don't bother with it.
|
Oh and here was me thinking it would be riveting. I'll take it off my bucket list...
|
It's not just cultural references that the young do not appreciate.
The oldest grandchild is thinking about jobs, careers etc as she needs to decide on subjects in the coming months. She is asking about what I did, her uncles. aunts etc @ Uni & about her grandma went off to Uni in 1963 (it's a Uni now but a Poly then) - she has no appreciation of how well off her upbringing has been in comparison to nearly 55 years ago. Whilst my son & wife are not rich they live well on 2 reasonably salaries etc etc & she is used to living at a standard.
Having to explain about food rationing, petrol rationing, coupons for clothes in the early 50s etc, etc. My wife was explaining it was a big step for her, in 1963, aged 17 to go off 130 miles , live in lodgings / flats with no heating & come home maybe once per term, no phone calls home just letter writing etc etc.
130 mile journey that would be planned well in advance - today I can travel there to go out for lunch with friends & family.
Today - Instant communications, foreign holidays, loads of clothes, wide choices in what you can do contrasts markedly with letter writing, a week in a caravan, school clothes+ Sunday best + the odd casual item.
|
>> Not having a dig but you do have a thing for using obscure phrases and
>> examples. You perhaps do it without realising. Like I said not a dig just an
>> observation.
I'd accept that. Some are professional jargon but many are things I grew up with, particularly things my father said. One came out at work yesterday; 'a meeting on the moors'. My father used it to describe off record meetings that 'never happened' for example business rivals meeting to fix prices and divvy up sales for their mutual benefit. I used it to describe off record meetings a client and his employer had held regarding possibility of a settlement to avoid a lengthy process of being 'managed out'. It was new to my supervisor as was one a week or too earlier 'away with your barrow' as might be delivered to a persistent and unwanted door to door hawker.
She and I also caught ourselves out with a piece of professional jargon - 'the lobster pot'. This refers to people moving from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. Once on UC there's no way of getting out/going back to legacy benefits - hence the lobster pot. Had quite a long discussion about a client who'd lost an award of Personal Independence Payment and whether consequent changes to his other benefits could put him in the lobster pot. Only after using phrase several times did we realise it meant nothing to the trainee who was shadowing me.
She gets it now!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 15 Mar 19 at 09:59
|
> She and I also caught ourselves out with a piece of professional jargon - 'the
>> lobster pot'. This refers to people moving from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. Once on
>> UC there's no way of getting out/going back to legacy benefits - hence the lobster
>> pot. Had quite a long discussion about a client who'd lost an award of Personal
>> Independence Payment and whether consequent changes to his other benefits could put him in the
>> lobster pot. Only after using phrase several times did we realise it meant nothing to
>> the trainee who was shadowing me.
>>
>> She gets it now!!
>>
I think that shows how easy it is to confuse others with 'isms' especially those new to a certain job.
Can be nothing but a bit of embarrassment in some areas, can be critical in others.
One of the reasons I prefer plain language and explain 'isms' beforehand when at work. Of course if its not really important on here if you don't follow some posts on here.
|
>> One of the reasons I prefer plain language and explain 'isms' beforehand when at work.
100% agree. Sometimes I think people forget the purpose of communication. Clarity is the responsibility of the 'speaker' not the listener.
In-house phrases and words are usually designed to protect the clique.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 15 Mar 19 at 12:26
|
>> In-house phrases and words are usually designed to protect the clique.
I'm not saying that never happens, I have a colleague with an attachment to phrase 'non-qualifier' where more direct language would be I'm sorry but you don't qualify for x. For most part whether in (eg) legal profession or garages it's just a form of shorthand; both sides know exactly what it means.
The lobster pot phrase was coined to explain the nature of UC, not to deliberately exclude.
|
It happens more than you might think, and sometimes its company cultural rather than conscious.
I would say that it is *usually* the case that it is an indicator of a closed-minded clique which likes to show off, promote the idea that it knows something that lower people do not and that prefers to exclude others.
Very rarely is it genuinely a matter of efficient communication.
Typically it is rampant in the civil service, which is just about one of the most exclusive self-protecting environments ever.
|
>> Typically it is rampant in the civil service, which is just about one of the
>> most exclusive self-protecting environments ever.
Examples?
|
Do you have any idea of how many contracts I've done over the years? There is little chance of me remembering any specific words, but I'll ponder it and if I do I'll post them.
Or did you mean examples of the insular, self-preserving, self-valuing organisation that is the Civil Service? Because you surely don't need me to tell you that??
|
>> Do you have any idea of how many contracts I've done over the years? There
>> is little chance of me remembering any specific words, but I'll ponder it and if
>> I do I'll post them.
I think we may be at cross purposes here. My fault for which I apologise.
As I understand it your professional role is that of consultant/interim manager. Your perspective and that of the employees/current management is that you're there to 'sort them out'. They fear loss of status and jobs etc. In that circumstance trying a 'bulls*t baffles brains' tactic is no surprise - we tried it when we had interims in the Public Trust Office.
That's a different kettle of fish to the use of professional jargon, or terms of art to pick on a phrase beloved of one my former very senior colleagues, between professional people as in my lobster pot example or lawyers' terms such as ex-parte or pro-bono.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 16 Mar 19 at 10:45
|
The way that they communicate with me is of no consequence, I am temporary.
Usually helping a company change is the solution to most of their issues. Helping them to understand the importance of change, how to change, and why it will be good for them, as individuals, to change.
"Sorting them out" as an action is not a significant part or a project, it is more the result.
Typically in closed minded, protective, and insular organisation the way they communicate is both key to what s going on, a cause of it, and a block to it changing. It is part of an attempt to protect and continue the status quo without interference or outsiders.
As I said, such language is normally as a result of a clique, and for the perpetuation of that clique. It is a way to show one's superiority, the 'specialness' of a group or some other communication of an exclusive group.
None of that is healthy in the work place.
And, in my experience, it absolutely abounds in the Civil Service and amongst civil servants.
You may disagree.
|
we tried it when we had interims in the Public Trust
>> Office.
Why did you do that?
>>
>> That's a different kettle of fish to the use of professional jargon, or terms of
>> art to pick on a phrase beloved of one my former very senior colleagues, between
>> professional people as in my lobster pot example or lawyers' terms such as ex-parte or
>> pro-bono.
>>
Not really different, they often cross over from professional jargon to confusing others. People rarely switch their language when speaking to an outsider when discussing work matters, especially when it's a closed organisation.
|
>>we tried it when we had interims in the Public Trust
>> Office.
>
>Why did you do that?
Obviously I don't know Bromp's lot.
But it typically comes because they feel that if they are open, and the outside world can see exactly what their job is, how they do it, the skills required to do it and their processes and practices that it will be forcibly changed.
Usually they are correct.
The mistake they most often make is to believe that the change will be bad or disadvantageous. But typically there will be people in that group who will be unsuited to the future for one reason or another, so one can quite understand it.
So many times I deal with people who believe they deserve continued employment because of what they have done in the past or what they know about the past. Whereas if they focussed on showing their value to the future they would do so much better.
If someone can show me that they are truly indispensable, then it will become an absolute goal of mine to remove that dependency and show that person that they are no longer indispensable so they better start showing us why they are valuable for the future.
However, the use of obscure terms is wider than that. Typically it's part of a mind set that contributed to getting into that position in the first place.
Fundamentally the art of communication is to effectively pass information and the passing of that information is the responsibility of the person 'speaking'. Obscure vocabulary, jargon and similar cannot possibly contribute to that if the listener is not likely to understand.
So, why is it done? To show superiority? To make the other feel excluded? There are no good reasons.
And to claim it's habit, I picked it up from Mr. X etc. etc. is just feebly trying to excuse something being done intentionally.
If I use a big or obscure word am I really saying that is because it is the most efficient way? Of course not.
It is a behaviour I detest and I consider it a form of bullying, which is *THE* thing guaranteed to get me going.
|
I'd agree with that, interesting post. However I think I'd disagree about the habit bit. Some people are like sponges for picking up phrases and words. Not all of course but I think it does happen.
|
>> Obviously I don't know Bromp's lot.
Interesting to see the perspective from the other side. To me, as somebody who's been through the process as an incumbent relatively junior staff member it looks a bit harsh and/or over cynical.
In 1999 I was a 'coal face worker' (there's a phrase you need to explain to youngsters) doing a form of casework that felt like a vocation. After a Quinqueniall review (QQR) many felt was a set up and a mauling from the National Audit Office Minsters decided something must be done. A Change Director was appointed over the head of the Chief Executive. Brought his own team of fast streamers with him. Set in motion a process outlined in QQR for radical change including idea that work I was carrying out could be better done by accredited outside professionals - mostly solicitors.
As I'm sure Mark will acknowledge responses to a change like that are a bit like grief or perhaps a terminal diagnosis. The start point is refusal to accept it followed by idea that something can be found to change or avert it. It's not about failing to be open so much as being convinced the change, which feels very threatening, is also far more problematic than its promoters believe.
Some of their ideas flew in face of solid evidence. The part of organisation that would remain had been organised in a way that allowed our clientele to deal with a named caseworker. That set up followed repeated feedback from clientele and their families that they were fed up with talking to somebody different every time. Technology would apparently solve the problem. No amount of explaining the complexity of the issues, and yes some resorted to technical language, could persuade them otherwise. I had several run ins with one individual who's view of the named caseworker thing was to smugly assert that one individual couldn't knoe 100 cases. No amount of responding that you only needed to be familiar with the 30 or so active at any one time and that 20% of them absorb 80% of your time would persuade him otherwise.
The Change Director scarpered before the full extent of damage he'd done was apparent. Took his extremely well regarded, later distinguished, sucessor another 2 years to put right.
And like Sooty I think you're wrong about picking stuff up from colleagues. Apart from his 'sponge' theory most people feel a need to fit in.
On Friday I finished a job I've been doing for three and a half years. Funder has taken work back in house. Nothing we've done wrong, it's a consequence of business objectives set by their regulator. We used a lot of benefit jargon - JSA, ESA, PIP, Support Group, SDP etc and a particular one of our own - EDI percentage. The latter is cost of reasonable use of a particular utility expressed as % of Effective Disposable Income (net household income after housing and standardised living costs).
Explaining to a client I'd use the full term and explain it. Putting it in case notes or discussing with colleagues I'd just use the shorthand.
New post next week. Up close and personal with Universal Credit. No doubt the project will develop a language of its own.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 16 Mar 19 at 17:21
|
What an interesting discussion, and I think I see both sides.
And certainly, coming from an IT background the use of acronyms and specialist terminology was often, in the past, something which some were able to hide behind. I wasn't originally from such background and even in my last role I was always keen to explain stuff in laymen's terms, especially when payment were present.
One role I had was middleman between the serious techies and our largest customers, where I had to manage their problem portfolio. The serious techs would brief me in their terms on very specific and detailed technical issues, causes and outcomes, then I'd take that along to customer management meetings and present it to them in terms they'd understand, which the techs simply could not do. Slightly different from the scenarios above but another strand of the same...
|
When I first joined a big blue IT company I had already been in the computer biz for more than ten years so I was well accustomed to IT technical jargon. The mentor I was given was a senior member of staff with more than 20 years service who always communicated in a series of TLAs. She got so fed up of me asking her "What the hell does that mean?" that she pointed me to an online file that explained the meaning of all the common TLAs the company used.
|
>>.....she pointed me to an online file that explained the meaning of all the common TLAs the company
>> used.
>>
...I have in front of me a 1990 document entitled "XXX* Jargon and General Computing Dictionary - Tenth Edition"
(* XXX; a big blue IT company)
Patently, much research and effort has/had gone into this, as it runs to 65 pages of close type.
Whilst it has a wealth of useful information, it often strays to the humorous.
So, whilst it expands on IPL as Initial Program Load, with some additional detail, it then follows up with IPR - In Plant Retiree ("Someone who has stopped doing any visible work, but has not done anything wrong, so cannot be fired".)
Or BAD adj. of a program: Broken As Designed. Used to Describe a program whose design, rather than implementation, is flawed. This term originated (and is mostly used) outside XXX, often in reaction to an XXX "Working As Designed" APAR response.
Pages and pages of gems that will be well recognised by anyone who has worked for or with a large blue IT company.
|
>...I have in front of me a 1990 document..
Does it explain the use of DEADBEEF or is it too early for that?
|
It is silent on the subject of DEADBEEF.....
|
0xDEADBEEF is the hex character string used to mark memory that hasn't been initialised yet. Very easy to see when looking at a memory dump for kernel debugging.
|
Like TnE I was in the TLA company b4 the dictionary was on "on line". "On Line" didn't exist, and there was a an official big blue company publication, with a publication number, that listed all the TLAs in use in the company. Except its a bit of a misnomer, as there were many three, four and five letter acronyms, anything above 4 usually got a slash to separate it.
Hence CICS, or SMP/E or S390 but OS/390
We did one of those in the bar drunken things on a residential course, and over the course of an evening we worked out that there were more than 2,500 three four or five letter acronyms in use, but more importantly, widely understood. I even worked in an acronym region EMEA.
Given the convoluted names of some of the stuff, it wasn't to keep the uninitiated in the dark, it was a requirement for effective communication.
|
...I've never worked for big blue, but for a long part of my career from around '77 onwards worked closely (too closely....) with them.
|
>> Given the convoluted names of some of the stuff, it wasn't to keep the uninitiated
>> in the dark, it was a requirement for effective communication.
Thank you for distilling my point in a sentence. It's not just TLA's, same applies to professional/technical terms such as lawyers' ex parte.
Aviation has a set of its own too. Some like RVR (Runway Visual Range) - how close to the runway you will be before you see it - are simple TLA's. Others like QFE/QNH - altimeter pressure settings to read zero at (a) the airfield or (b) sea level - date to a time when radio telephony (RT) was in morse code and need to keep keying to a minimum.
EMEA - East Midlands and East Anglia?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 17 Mar 19 at 08:51
|
"East Midlands and East Anglia" LOL. Nothing so grand!!!
Europe, Middle East and Africa...
|
>> >> Given the convoluted names of some of the stuff, it wasn't to keep the
>> uninitiated
>> >> in the dark, it was a requirement for effective communication.
>>
>> Thank you for distilling my point in a sentence. It's not just TLA's, same applies
>> to professional/technical terms such as lawyers' ex parte.
There's a difference between the words used to describe something and those words/phrases that are used unnecessarily and create confusion.
|
>> There's a difference between the words used to describe something and those words/phrases that are
>> used unnecessarily and create confusion.
Yebbut, who decides what's necessary?
|
>>Aviation has a set of its own too.
Some has spilled over to the public especially three letter city codes.
LHR LGW MAN GLA but best not to guess too many Canadian ones or MAR is not in the south of France.
PNR - PAX ( Passenger ) Name Record is certainly well over 50 years old.
STD STA ETA ATA are also seen
Other airline usage " We have three HAGs ( could be any sex) might offend passengers at Check In . HAGs means Have A Gos - passengers are prepared to rush to the departure gate in the hope of getting on the flight. Security and distance to gates means it is less possible these days.
There are many many airline abbreviations still in use from days of slow communication etc
|
>> >>Aviation has a set of its own too.
>> Some has spilled over to the public especially three letter city codes.
>> LHR LGW MAN GLA but best not to guess too many Canadian ones or MAR
>> is not in the south of France.
As you say the IATA codes have found their way into public usage. Checking car hire for an upcoming trip to Spain I found the three letter codes worked for pick up/drop off locations.
Canadian ones are bit obscure as all or most start with Y (why?).
Marseille is MRS but why is Malaga AGP?
There's a whole other set, ICAO codes, used for flight planning etc. Leeds Bradford is LBA for ticketing, baggage etc but EGNM for flight planning. First letter is region E=Northern Europe, then country, G=UK and other two are identifiers. Southern Europe's identifier is L, US is K and Canada Y.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 17 Mar 19 at 11:45
|
>>Canadian ones are bit obscure as all or most start with Y (why?).
From what I read it seems that
....in the US and Canada, the IATA codes are based on the ICAO codes with the first letter of the prefix dropped. Thus KJFK becomes JFK, KLAX is LAX, CYOW translates to YOW for Ottawa, and CYYZ is YYZ for Toronto. Don’t think that any “”Y”” code will be in Canada though – YUM is Yuma, AZ, and YOK is Yokohama, Japan.
From what I recall those locations/cities early in the aviation scene tended to get fairly obvious codes LON BOM PAR MIA . Later ones / multiple airports got something similar L-HR, L-GW, NQY for Newquay
Others adopted local ( to them) codes - Rome- FCO Fiumicino
Cities with multiple airports like LON PAR etc , the codes are often still in use but for admin etc.
|
>> Cities with multiple airports like LON PAR etc , the codes are often still in
>> use but for admin etc.
When clearing out the loft in our old house I came across a Luxair baggage tag for LON. Probably from the sixties. East Midlands is now the obvious EMA but I'm sure that when we flew back there from Menorca in 1975 the baggage was tagged CDD in reference to the 'local' name of Castle Donington. ISTR that the R/T callsign was Castledon Approach/Tower until quite recently - maybe thirty years though....
|
I too have been in a similar situation.
I was lined up to be an expert witness in a high profile UK case.
Our very high profile lawyers had to learn the industry standard acronyms and procedures etc.
It was an interesting time for us all and the first time all my scribbling had to be on headed proformas so they stayed legally confidential.
The " technical" documentation from the other side was awful, badly written, confused, inaccurate and generally rubbish. They were badly in need of a middleman.
The case , in the end, did not proceed to court so I did not have my say :-(
|
I presume that I am still on the list of potential expert witnesses for a case that started in 2003. I was working on, writing and lecturing about my employer's efforts to provide Linux compatibility in their verion of the Unix Operating System. My evidence apparently would show that the plaintiff knew of those efforts and was actually a prime partner before they breached the terms of the agreement by a change of ownership.
The last update I received was about a year ago so I guess it is still ongoing, languishing in legal la-la-land.
|
This is too big a subject for typing really, especially on a Saturday afternoon after two games of rugby, however….
>>Quinqueniall
Why use that word? I know what it means, but not everybody will. And even those that do will not easily manage it in conversation. Why not say "5 year"? I have my own, possibly uncharitable, view.
>> To me, as somebody who's been through the process as an incumbent relatively junior
>> staff member it looks a bit harsh and/or over cynical.
I was absolutely driven to force myself to the top exactly because I thought the people there t the time were incompetent with no understanding. I was determine dot get there and do it properly.
It is not cynical. It is pretty much never cynical To be cynical is not to be objective. And beyond all else one needs to be objective. In my experience the people most likely to throw accusations of cynicism are those who are trying to protect their own position and whose excuses are challenged.
>> In 1999 I was a 'coal face worker' (there's a phrase you need to explain
>> to youngsters)
Then don't use it.
>>doing a form of casework that felt like a vocation.
Again, in my experience saying it's a vocation is usually, though not always, an excuse for doing it inefficiently.
>> review (QQR) many felt was a set up and a mauling from the National Audit
>> Office Minsters decided something must be done.
This is the price of different goals.
I am sure that your goal was to do the best you could by your customers. No doubt the goal of your reviewers/auditors was to spend less money. Those two things are incompatible. One of many reasons why this is easier in the commercial world.
e.g. may times I have heard politicians say they want an efficient Police Force. I don't, I want an effective Police Force. All too often that difference matters.
>>A Change Director was appointed...………………..
It is all a disaster from here on in. There is no agreement on goals, philosophy, strategy etc. etc. A force comes in determined to spend less money and meets a force which is determined to maintain their current approach which they believe to be customer focussed. Both are fundamentally wrong.
>> As I'm sure Mark will acknowledge responses to a change like that are a bit
>> like grief or perhaps a terminal diagnosis.
It is certainly shocking. Mostly because it is managed badly.
It is rare, perhaps unknown, that any organisation is crap because it's workforce is crap. It is almost [perhaps actually] always because it's management is s***.
Making changes in your workforce without making changes in your management is simply an utter waste of time.
Without going through it in detail there is much truth in the rest of what you say. But fundamentally it comes back to the fact that the goals of the workforce and the goals of the management are incompatible and neither understand the other, or is willing to try.
Compounded by the fact that most consultants are awful. Truly awful. All they do is come in and spend a fortune coming up with an idea that they know the management will like. It is a rare consultant that will tell management the truth. Though they do exist.
No disrespect to the rest of your post, much of which I agree with, but the fundamental problems lie above.
And protection of the clique will not help, it just makes it more harmful.
But honestly, if you get someone like me in, who has no ulterior motive, no need of a career, not preconceived ideas but does have clearly understood goals, then you are far, far better to work with them.
Because if it comes to a bun fight, management and consultants rarely lose in the short term.
|
>> This is too big a subject for typing really, especially on a Saturday afternoon after
>> two games of rugby, however….
I'm not a rugger fan but we're on same ground I think. Agree with generality of what you say. However:
Quinqennial Review is (or was) formal term used for five yearly examination of need for/functions of government bodies. I can't find full text but there's reference here:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/445/0041822.htm
I used it in that sense.
You, I and pretty much everyone else here is over fifty and understands the 'coal face' analogy.
Fact I'd have to explain it to a youngster is exactly the subject of this thread.
|
> For most part whether in (eg) legal profession or garages it's just a form of
>> shorthand; both sides know exactly what it means.
An assumption there if I ever saw one, people can nod away and still not know is being said. Many cases people are too proud or scared to say they don't know.
Everywhere has its own language, some more some less, but it's best when that is acknowledged. The risk of something going wrong can be reduced by encouraging questioning. The only stupid question is one you don't ask, that's something that was drilled into me. It's something I passed on when it was my turn.
>>
>> The lobster pot phrase was coined to explain the nature of UC, not to deliberately
>> exclude.
Not deliberately all of the time, but some of the time.
|
>>She's an English Grad from University of Reading who you'd think might at least be on nodding terms with works of Wilde.
There are huge gaps in everyone's repertoire of references. I doubt I would be unable to identify many from sports or pop but then I doubt many posters know about Gloops.
|
Being of a certain disposition, undoubtedly riddled with personality disorders, I have a tendency to leap enthusiastically on something new and explore it to death, with many a fascinating byway taken in on the journey.
Before I do this with the currently unknown to me Gloops, Ambo, Google tells me (I'm guessing) you're referring to the cartoon cat?
Last edited by: Crankcase on Mon 4 Mar 19 at 13:03
|
That's right. The little fellow was an important early influence of mine.
|
I'm pleased to say that I know nothing about most sports, modern pop music, video gaming, You Tube icons, Whatsapp, Snapchat, and so-called "Reality TV".
I do have a good general knowlege of oher things.
Harumph.
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 7 Mar 19 at 22:47
|
My 28 year old son needed to describe a tool he needed that he didnt know the name of. So he drew it............it was a spanner.
On the other hand he is very at home with modern tech and has a very broad general knowledge (tools excepted). Times change.
|
My daughter, a 26yo with first degree in History and Politics and Masters in History was home last week.
Discussing subject of politicians technique when answering questions she asked if we'd heard of Harold Macmillan and his pipe.......
|
Yes, a confusion of Harolds.
Wilson used to smoke a pipe in public to promote his image of man of the people and used lighting it to give him thinking time when asked a difficult question.
In private he smoked expensive cigars...
|
A confusion of Harolds indeed.
When Bromp spoke of Harold Macmillan and his pipe it reminded me that more than 20 years ago, I designed a cover of his diaries and how I used the subtitle as pipe smoke. Difficult to get any humour in this genre of book, but I persevered and got it approved.
When I finally found it, it seems it wasn't Macmillan after all. Funny how the passage of time changes your version of events.
www.amazon.co.uk/Harold-Nicolson-Diaries-Nigel/dp/000655041X
|
>> When I finally found it, it seems it wasn't Macmillan after all. Funny how the
>> passage of time changes your version of events.
>>
>> www.amazon.co.uk/Harold-Nicolson-Diaries-Nigel/dp/000655041X
The Amazon notes for that book have a confusion of Harold's as well, mixing Nicolson with Wilson. Nicolson was married to Vita Sackville-West, there was a rather good TV series a few years ago based on her diaries.
Both were interesting characters:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Nicolson
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Sackville-West
|
Was he the one shot in the eye with a pipe?
|
Ceci n'est pas une pipe?
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 15 Mar 19 at 12:23
|
Harold Nagritte, n'était-ce pas?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 Mar 19 at 12:36
|
>> Harold Nagritte, n'était-ce pas?
Ouch. Gonna need a couple of Renés after that.
|
One that came up at work yesterday.
My manager (D), together with the CEO and a member of the Trustee Board had been interviewing a candidate for an adviser job. Consequently, when I went to seek him out with a question the three of them were in the CEO's office no doubt discussing the interview and whom they might appoint.
Question arose from a discussion with a colleague in another area of the office. Explained I couldn't see D right then as he was in a wash up meeting after the interview.
The phrase 'wash up meeting', as in getting together after an event to discuss implications, agree action points etc. was new to her.
It was widely used in my Quango time particularly in relation to staff gathering after Quango's monthly meeting. The purpose of this was to ensure we had common understanding of conclusions, follow up actions and who did them etc etc. Pretty sure I was familiar with it before though.
FWIW Mrs B didn't know it and thought it might be CS jargon.
|
I've heard of it before a couple of times. I never used it myself and wouldn't. Although those that did use it i think it meant something different. Used as say the last meeting of a course before everyone leaves.
Although your example it seems a bit pointless, having a meeting straight after another meeting to talk about what just happened in the first meeting.
|
>> Although your example it seems a bit pointless, having a meeting straight after another meeting
>> to talk about what just happened in the first meeting.
Just to be clear.
The first meeting was a formal one involving the Quango's Chair (for most of my time there Lord Newton of Braintree, but latterly the former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas) and the 13 or so Members who were appointees of the Lord Chancellor and Scottish/Welsh Ministers. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also usual attended as a member 'ex officio'. There would often be visitors to speak to and be quizzed by Members.
The 'wash up' only involved the half dozen or so staff who'd attended meeting and who need to agree what conclusions were (not always clear) and minuting/follow up actions.
|
>> Just to be clear.
>>
>> The first meeting was a formal one involving the Quango's Chair (for most of my
>> time there Lord Newton of Braintree, but latterly the former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas) and
>> the 13 or so Members who were appointees of the Lord Chancellor and Scottish/Welsh Ministers.
>> The Parliamentary Ombudsman also usual attended as a member 'ex officio'. There would often be
>> visitors to speak to and be quizzed by Members.
I'm afraid I've not got the foggiest who any of those people are.
>> The 'wash up' only involved the half dozen or so staff who'd attended meeting and
>> who need to agree what conclusions were (not always clear) and minuting/follow up actions.
Not pointless more like badly run meetings then. If people are coming out of a meeting so unsure of what's been said/what they need to do and have to have another meeting then someone needs to look at why that is.
>>
|
Meetings, generally speaking, are mainly for middle managers to justify their existence and fill their otherwise fairly pointless days.
If you are the boss, you decide what happens next and ask those who report to you to do it. If you're a worker you do what the boss asks you to and get paid.
If you're a middle manager, you're not really allowed to decide anything, but equally it's beneath you to actually do any work, so you call or attend meetings for something to do between coffee and lunch breaks. If you're really smart, you'll then create a spreadsheet detailing the outcomes of the meetings and send it to your boss to prove you were actually doing something.
The boss will thank you for that but will of course ignore the content of the spreadsheet and decide what should happen next anyway.
;-)
|
>> Meetings, generally speaking, are mainly for middle managers to justify their existence and fill their
>> otherwise fairly pointless days.
Ah the professional meeting attender.
|
Sooty,
The body concerned was the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. You can Google it if you want to know more.
When you've got a bunch of lawyers, academics ex high fliers in public service etc. all talking at different times and from different perspectives then sometimes deconstructing what they said needs some thought and a listen to the audio recording of the meeting. One member was a Glaswegian, I could only follow about two words in five of what he said! And even if that was crystal clear we need to identify what follow up actions, letters to Ministers or whatever are needed and points to be covered.
TBH I quoted the Quango as an example of a wash up meeting. There's a limit to how much time I'm prepared to spend justifying the working methods of an outfit that was abolished in 2013 just to answer nitpicking of others.
|
>> Sooty,
>>
>> The body concerned was the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. You can Google it if
>> you want to know more.
I'm good thanks.
I wasn't quite sure why you added all the names, it's not like anyone is going to know who they are.
There's a
>> limit to how much time I'm prepared to spend justifying the working methods of an
>> outfit that was abolished in 2013 just to answer nitpicking of others.
>>
You don't have to justify putting anything on here.
It's my opinion of what you've written, that's the point of being on here.
|
>> I wasn't quite sure why you added all the names, it's not like anyone
>> is going to know who they are.
Genuinely surprised if folks have not heard of Lord Newton. As Tony Newton he was Tory MP for Braintree from 1974 to 1997 when his seat fell in Labour landslide. Held various offices in Thatcher and Major governments including Whip's office, Health/Social Security and Leader of the House. Until she published her memoir he was said to be only person who knew of Edwina Currie's dalliance with John Major. He referred ironically (but I suspect partly in truth) about dodging from one piece of cover to next expecting to be quizzed by journalists in immediate aftermath of her publication.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Newton,_Baron_Newton_of_Braintree
Intention was to show calibre of people involved. Could have used 'a retired senior cabinet minister' but seemed better to colour reference in with the name.
His successor was less well known though quite often in media as interviewee over Data/Information related issues.
|
>> >> I wasn't quite sure why you added all the names, it's not like anyone
>> >> is going to know who they are.
>>
>> Genuinely surprised if folks have not heard of Lord Newton.
Wouldn't know him if I ran him over.
> Intention was to show calibre of people involved. Could have used 'a retired senior cabinet minister' but seemed better to colour reference in with the name.
No real need to 'show the calibre of people involved' I don't think it was relevant tbh, anyone is capable of holding a poorly organised meeting. I think perhaps because these people were big names or important where you worked, you think they are well known to the wider public. That's not a dig, ask 100 people in the street in the street who the Chancellor is ? I bet 2/3 haven't a clue.
|
>> I bet 2/3 haven't a clue. <<
The same 2/3 that have never heard of car4play :)
|
I am not ashamed to say I have no idea who Lord Newton is (or was...?). I was three in 1974, and have no recollection of anything he did. But then how many politicians are remembered after 5 years, never mind 20, even by those with more than a passing interest in politics?
I think it’s quite telling that because the Government and civil service have been almost completely occupied with BREXIT over the last 3 years they’ve had little time for any other government activity. But the country has carried on quite happily...less is almost always more when it comes to government :)
|
The only Newtons I know are Isaac, and Robert. You really think we would remember some second rate third string politician from 1974?
Not exactly Profumo on the infamy scale.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 25 Apr 19 at 22:08
|
I know a Bank Newton in Craven District
You’ll be passing it on your next holiday cruise along the Leeds Liverpool canal Zeddo
|
>> Genuinely surprised if folks have not heard of Lord Newton.
I can just about remember him, and I am of the right age group.
|
...he always speaks highly of you, as well..........l
|
>>The phrase 'wash up meeting', as in getting together after an event to discuss implications, agree action points etc.
I've never heard the phrase before, though it's meaning is very clear.
To have a meeting to ensure a "common understanding of conclusions, follow up actions" from the meeting immediately preceding, doesn't reflect well on the first meeting. Perhaps if the first meeting was done properly then there would never have been any need to argue the validity of the term "wash up meeting".
I do have to say I find it neither more nor less credible depending on the "calibre" of people involved. I'm surprised you would think that would add credibility to the term whoever was involved.
Also, whilst not understanding the relevance, I will say that the perceived calibre of people in my world depends on rather more than their job title.
|
Went to a number of "Task and Finish" meetings which became anything but...
|
>> Went to a number of "Task and Finish" meetings which became anything but...
That's exactly what the post meeting wash up was for.
There would be a discussion in main meeting about a particular subject, let's take changes to the rules governing the appeal mechanism for social security decisions. Members would contribute and identify concerns, changes they would like to see etc. Conclusion would be that staff member with policy lead for DWP would write to Minister covering points discussed.
Filleting out the points to be covered and compositing where comments overlapped was a 'wash up' task as was deciding deadlines for letter being sent.
Sometimes, as alluded above, we'd find ourselves asking 'did you understand X's' point?
We'd all check our notes or if necessary listen to the audio record.
Could we have done it another way? Yes. But if the process is proven to work why faff with it?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 27 Apr 19 at 09:43
|
>>
>> Sometimes, as alluded above, we'd find ourselves asking 'did you understand X's' point?
>>
>> We'd all check our notes or if necessary listen to the audio record.
>>
>> Could we have done it another way? Yes. But if the process is proven to
>> work why faff with it?
>>
Surely if you’re in a meeting and don’t hear / understand / agree with a point someone’s making, then the time to question / clarify / discuss is in the actual meeting? Particularly if your role is to chair or take minutes
|
Sometimes that happened. Other times the minuters found they'd got slightly different understandings.
It's six years next month since organisations final meeting, it was formally abolished the following August.
The way we did it had been refined over years and worked. I suspect other similar bodies still going (Social Security Advisory Committee for example) work in a similar way.
|