"Please do not include 1. Relatives 2. Current or former employers 3. Current or former supervisors"
jj
"Please provide three references. Do not include:
1. Relatives
2. Current or former employers
3. Current or former supervisors"
Now items 1 and 3 are clear to me but item 2 confuses me.
Does this mean do not include coworkers? If so, doesn't this
basically leave one with friends who are not relatives? This isn't
for a sales position (with a territory) or other job that requires a
large network of contacts to be successful - aka business associates.
the Omrud
No, it does not exclude co-workers. Your employers are the people who
pay your wages - the owners or managers of the business for which you work.
It is a strange list. "Relatives" makes sense, but a request for a
reference from a former employer or supervisor would be normal around here.
--
David
jj
>It is a strange list. "Relatives" makes sense, but a request for a
>reference from a former employer or supervisor would be normal around here.
>-
>David
Thank you David. I should have included that this is for a US company
HQ'd in Las Vegas, NV (MGM) I think there is some kind of US law
that former employers can only verify position and dates of employment
but not (?) the reason for leaving or if the employee was fired.
Salary info is not released.
I imagine there is a widely accepted/used system of significant
silences and code words used between HR professionals?
jj
Richard Chambers
It leaves people such as:-
Former schoolteacher [1], or university tutor.
Vicar/priest
Friends
Influential friends of your parents [1]
Landlord
People with whom you do regular business.
[1] I used both of these methods when applying for a job, when I was 32
years old (14 years after leaving school). I remained a strong personal
friend of my Physics master, until his death. Business associates of my
Father were also happy to write a reference for me.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
John Dean
In my outfit we specified that references were not to be from employers or
supervisors because we asked for details of previous employment and would
make contact directly for views on the applicant. The applicant's referees
were people who could comment on the 'whole person' and who had known them
on a personal level for a reasonable period.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Steve Hayes
<richard.cham...@ntlworld.net> wrote:
>It leaves people such as:-
>
>Former schoolteacher [1], or university tutor.
>Vicar/priest
>Friends
>Influential friends of your parents [1]
>Landlord
>People with whom you do regular business.
>
>[1] I used both of these methods when applying for a job, when I was 32
>years old (14 years after leaving school). I remained a strong personal
>friend of my Physics master, until his death. Business associates of my
>Father were also happy to write a reference for me.
When I applied for a job with London Transport the onl;y people I knew in
England were clergy and thier families, and they told me thase were not
permissible. So in my final application all my referees were in Soputh Africa
(mainly lecturers/tutors).
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Arcadian Rises
That's a quite comprehensive list, however it leaves out some very
important people:
1. your parole officer
2. your shrink
3. your ex(es) including your exes-in-law.
Robert Bannister
It's totally weird. I'd even be afraid of co-workers being wrong and end
up with a 50-year-old testimonial from my school, which would hardly be
helpful. One wonders what sort of referees they really are looking for -
psychiatrist, former prison warder?
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
Just to clarify -- when an application asks for references, all that is
wanted is contact information. The higher-ups in your chain of command
should be on that list, not your family, drinking buddies, or next-door
neighbors. The prospective employer might not contact any of them. It all
depends ...
--
Skitt (AmE)
Ray O'Hara
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:7h8932F...@mid.individual.net...
If you can't find 3 friends to lie for you , how big a loser are you?
Cheryl
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:59:19 +0100, "Richard Chambers"
> <richard.cham...@ntlworld.net> wrote:
>
>> It leaves people such as:-
>>
>> Former schoolteacher [1], or university tutor.
>> Vicar/priest
>> Friends
>> Influential friends of your parents [1]
>> Landlord
>> People with whom you do regular business.
>>
>> [1] I used both of these methods when applying for a job, when I was 32
>> years old (14 years after leaving school). I remained a strong personal
>> friend of my Physics master, until his death. Business associates of my
>> Father were also happy to write a reference for me.
>
> When I applied for a job with London Transport the onl;y people I knew in
> England were clergy and thier families, and they told me thase were not
> permissible. So in my final application all my referees were in Soputh Africa
> (mainly lecturers/tutors).
>
>
reference during one job interview - it was for a teaching job in a
church-run school. Although I had at one time known a clergyman (not of
the appropriate religion, though) I had moved around so much since, and
drifted away from church attendance I didn't know any clergy well at
all; certainly no local ones. I was depending mainly on my last employer
(not local, but reasonable well-known) and I think on the hope that one
or two of my former teachers would remember me.
I got the job anyway.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
I think I've seen that, too. The assumption is that of course they'll
contact the last one or two people on your 'present and former employer'
list - I think I've seen 'may we contact?' on some application forms, so
maybe not all employers automatically check. And then, separate from the
list of previous employers, there's be the list of people who can
testify that you are honest and hardworking etc in more general terms -
no relatives allowed. I've always put a previous supervisor there, too
- I've never been in a position in which a job search had to be kept
secret from my current employer, and it looks more impressive than "Jane
Smith, a good friend since we met in kindergarten".
On the other hand, I've acted as a reference for the late teen/early
twenties children of friends who needed someone in addition to teacher
and supervisor at that last summer job.
--
Cheryl
Robert Bannister
I don't see how "the higher-ups in your chain of command" fits in with
"do not include...current or former employers/supervisors". This may not
mean your immediate superior, as David pointed out, but it is scary
because the person who can hire/fire you, while not being your employer
per se, is your employer de facto, and is certainly your supervisor.,
It is certainly true for teachers that no-one would expect the
Department of Education to be a referee, but they would be expected to
be able to give their head of department, deputy principal or principal
as references, and I have often been phoned up at home to provide a
reference for a teacher who had been one of my staff.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
I don't see how it fits in with that either. Not including work references
is silly, as those are the only ones that really matter.
> It is certainly true for teachers that no-one would expect the
> Department of Education to be a referee, but they would be expected to
> be able to give their head of department, deputy principal or
> principal as references, and I have often been phoned up at home to
> provide a reference for a teacher who had been one of my staff.
Right, so there you are.
ObAUE: I see that in BrE "referee" means "reference". AmE usage is
different.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Yes. Things might have changed in the last decade, but the usage I was
familiar with was that the "referee" was a person who could be asked to
supply a "reference". However, as shown below (8.a), "reference" was
also sometimes used to mean "referee".
OED:
referee, n.
5. a. A person willing to testify as to the character or abilities
of someone, esp. an applicant for employment, a tenancy, or an
academic award.
reference, n.
8. a. The action or an act of referring one person to another for
information or testimonial; a person to whom one is or may be
referred for this purpose; spec. = REFEREE n. 5a.
b. A (usually written) testimonial produced by a referee (REFEREE
n.5a), esp. a letter from a previous employer testifying to
someone's ability or reliability, used when applying for a new job.
Usage may or may not have changed since the days when I was cited as a
referee and provided written references for people.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> It is certainly true for teachers that no-one would expect the
>> Department of Education to be a referee, but they would be expected
>> to be able to give their head of department, deputy principal or
>> principal as references, and I have often been phoned up at home to
>> provide a reference for a teacher who had been one of my staff.
>
> Right, so there you are.
>
> ObAUE: I see that in BrE "referee" means "reference". AmE usage is
> different.
It was only when getting my latest soccer ref certification that I
learned *why* (sports) referees are called "referees". Originally the
game, played in schools, was a "gentleman's game", and infractions of
the rules were expected to be called by the players, with
responsibility going to the captain of each team. For situations in
which the captains disagreed, the dispute would be "referred" to a
faculty member on the sidelines. Later, this "referee" would watch
the game from on the field, so he'd have a better idea of who was in
the right, and eventually it became his job to make the calls.
At least, that's the story we were told.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>"Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>> It is certainly true for teachers that no-one would expect the
>>> Department of Education to be a referee, but they would be expected
>>> to be able to give their head of department, deputy principal or
>>> principal as references, and I have often been phoned up at home to
>>> provide a reference for a teacher who had been one of my staff.
>>
>> Right, so there you are.
>>
>> ObAUE: I see that in BrE "referee" means "reference". AmE usage is
>> different.
>
>It was only when getting my latest soccer ref certification that I
>learned *why* (sports) referees are called "referees". Originally the
>game, played in schools, was a "gentleman's game", and infractions of
>the rules were expected to be called by the players, with
>responsibility going to the captain of each team. For situations in
>which the captains disagreed, the dispute would be "referred" to a
>faculty member on the sidelines. Later, this "referee" would watch
>the game from on the field, so he'd have a better idea of who was in
>the right, and eventually it became his job to make the calls.
>
>At least, that's the story we were told.
I was told the same story. There is a similar, one level removed,
version of "referee" in major tennis tournaments. There is a "tournament
referee" who is in overall charge of umpiring and to whom umpires can
refer difficult decisions. Before technology shrunk such things the
phones on the umpires' chairs at the Wimbledon Championships were
readily visible.
Default User
> I don't see how "the higher-ups in your chain of command" fits in
> with "do not include...current or former employers/supervisors". This
> may not mean your immediate superior, as David pointed out, but it is
> scary because the person who can hire/fire you, while not being your
> employer per se, is your employer de facto, and is certainly your
> supervisor.
In a large company, a typical supervisor for low-level employees can
neither hire nor fire anyone. My boss could start the wheels in motion
to fire me, but she would have no power to actually terminate me.
In fact, firing for cause in a big company is a complicated business
involving both management and HR. All parties involved would just as
soon in never came to that, other than accessing naughty stuff with
your computer, which is a rapid and sure way to get tossed. Having a
pal who's a VP gives one insight into that sort of thing.
Brian
--
Day 226 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
R H Draney
>
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> I don't see how "the higher-ups in your chain of command" fits in
>> with "do not include...current or former employers/supervisors". This
>> may not mean your immediate superior, as David pointed out, but it is
>> scary because the person who can hire/fire you, while not being your
>> employer per se, is your employer de facto, and is certainly your
>> supervisor.
>
>In a large company, a typical supervisor for low-level employees can
>neither hire nor fire anyone. My boss could start the wheels in motion
>to fire me, but she would have no power to actually terminate me.
Delegation announcements when supervisors were out of the office for a period of
time were always written to include the phrase "all my responsibilities, except
staff additions and salary increases"...we took this to mean that a delegate
could fire people or cut their pay but not the inverse operations....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Default User
> Default User filted:
> > In a large company, a typical supervisor for low-level employees can
> > neither hire nor fire anyone. My boss could start the wheels in
> > motion to fire me, but she would have no power to actually
> > terminate me.
>
> Delegation announcements when supervisors were out of the office for
> a period of time were always written to include the phrase "all my
> responsibilities, except staff additions and salary increases"...we
> took this to mean that a delegate could fire people or cut their pay
> but not the inverse operations....r
My supervisor can't directly alter my salary either. The evaluation she
turns affects it, but she can't decide I'm doing a great job and give
me an extra $50 a week or anything.
Robert Bannister
"Referee" ought to mean the person receiving the praise, but is often
used to mean the person giving the reference.
"Reference" ought to mean the written or spoken assessment, but is often
used to refer to people. It's all very confusing - a bit like that
application form.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Skitt wrote:
>> ObAUE: I see that in BrE "referee" means "reference". AmE usage is
>> different.
>
> "Referee" ought to mean the person receiving the praise, but is
> often used to mean the person giving the reference.
It's the person the prospective employer refers to for information.
> "Reference" ought to mean the written or spoken assessment,
And when applying to college in the US, it does. You ask people to
"write you a reference" that's sent to the college.
> but is often used to refer to people. It's all very confusing - a
> bit like that application form.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> "Reference" ought to mean the written or spoken assessment,
>
>And when applying to college in the US, it does. You ask people to
>"write you a reference" that's sent to the college.
Nice use of the passive voice there at the end...I'm told that it's common
practice for the prospective student to write the reference and simply ask the
authority figure in question to sign it....r
LFS
> Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Reference" ought to mean the written or spoken assessment,
>> And when applying to college in the US, it does. You ask people to
>> "write you a reference" that's sent to the college.
>
> Nice use of the passive voice there at the end...I'm told that it's common
> practice for the prospective student to write the reference and simply ask the
> authority figure in question to sign it....r
>
>
I *beg* my students to do this. It would save me so much time.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Mike Lyle
"LFS" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7hfj4lF...@mid.individual.net...
>R H Draney wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Nice use of the passive voice there at the end...I'm told that it's
>> common
>> practice for the prospective student to write the reference and
>> simply ask the
>> authority figure in question to sign it....r
>>
>>
>
> I *beg* my students to do this. It would save me so much time.
>
whose referee asked him what he wanted the reference to say.
In my last job we weren't _allowed_ to give references. I did anyway.
(In a previous incarnation, I once felt obliged to give a _bad_
reference. It gave me a slightly queasy feeling, but I had to do it.)
Cue typical mid-19-C Punch cartoon.
Master: Well, Patrick, in your testimonial I shall be happy to record
that you are honest and industrious, but I should be stretching a point
were I to say you were _sober_!
Patrick: And when yer honour's afther stretchin' a pint, could ye
stretch it a bit further, and say that I'm _aften_ sober?
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> ObAUE: I see that in BrE "referee" means "reference". AmE usage is
>>> different.
>> "Referee" ought to mean the person receiving the praise, but is
>> often used to mean the person giving the reference.
>
> It's the person the prospective employer refers to for information.
I know what it is, but when you compare it to other "-ee" words, you
would expect it to mean the person being referred rather than the person
being referred to.
--
Rob Bannister
Mark Brader
> It was only when getting my latest soccer ref certification that I
> situations in which the captains disagreed, the dispute would be
> "referred" to a faculty member on the sidelines.
And there are still situations in some sports where certain rulings
can only be made if a player asks for them.
Most sports: Referee
Baseball: Umpire
Tournament bridge: Director
Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
Others?
--
Mark Brader | "I couldn't imagine what Americans did at night
Toronto | when they weren't writing novels."
m...@vex.net | --Joseph Heller
My text in this article is in the public domain.
James Hogg
It means a "person to whom any matter or question in dispute is
referred for decision" (OED), so in the original sense it fits
the pattern of being the object of the verb rather than the
person doing the referring.
--
James
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:11:09 -0500:
> Evan Kirshenbaum writes:
> > It was only when getting my latest soccer ref certification that I
> > learned *why* (sports) referees are called "referees".... For
> > situations in which the captains disagreed, the dispute would be
> > "referred" to a faculty member on the sidelines.
>
> And there are still situations in some sports where certain rulings
> can only be made if a player asks for them.
>
> Most sports: Referee
> Baseball: Umpire
Cricket: Umpire
> Tournament bridge: Director
> Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
>
> Others?
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Steve Hayes
Aye, but what he was getting at was that it was the third party. I would say
the three are:
1. the referrer
2. the referee
3. the referred
Robert Bannister was saying that he would expect No 3 to be called "the
referee" by analogy with other words ending in -ee (like employee, refugee?).
But even if it were, I would pronounce them differently:
2. the ref-eree (stress on first syllable)
3. the refer-ee (stress on second syllable)
Mark Brader
> > Most sports: Referee
> > Baseball: Umpire
Nick Spalding:
Cricket: Umpire
> > Tournament bridge: Director
> > Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
> >
> > Others?
*Others*, please, not more of the same.
--
Mark Brader | "Opening a monitor case is not for the inexperienced
Toronto | or the faint of heart, unless you need
m...@vex.net | defibrillation." -- Kevin D. Swan
LFS
> Mark Brader:
>>> Most sports: Referee
>>> Baseball: Umpire
>
> Nick Spalding:
> Cricket: Umpire
>
>>> Tournament bridge: Director
>>> Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
>>>
>>> Others?
>
> *Others*, please, not more of the same.
Perhaps Nick was making a point in response to "Most sports: referee".
On this side of the pond, both cricket and tennis are quite important
and they both have umpires, not referees.
Newsgroup: moderator (or self-appointed bossy boots, if unmoderated)
James Hogg
I was thinking of the original use of the word, when the three
parties/things involved were:
the referrer (who asks someone else to make a decision)
the referee (to whom the decision is delegated)
the referred (the case or question to be decided)
I agree that modern usage brings a need for a term for a fourth
party, the person whose fate is in the hands of the referee.
The problem is the semantic change that has happened, as
"referee" is not longer interpreted as a person who is the
passive recipient of a referral but as a person who actively
judges a matter or an individual. There would be no problem if
the terms were something like "assessor" and "assessee".
--
James
Default User
> Mark Brader wrote:
> > Mark Brader:
> > > > Most sports: Referee
> > > > Baseball: Umpire
> >
> > Nick Spalding:
> > Cricket: Umpire
> >
> > > > Tournament bridge: Director
> > > > Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
> > > >
> > > > Others?
> >
> > *Others*, please, not more of the same.
>
>
> Perhaps Nick was making a point in response to "Most sports:
> referee". On this side of the pond, both cricket and tennis are quite
> important and they both have umpires, not referees.
American Football, being inclusive, has a referee, an umpire, and
several judges. And a linesman. That's different, so Mark shouldn't
complain too much.
Brian
--
Day 228 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Soccer now has a "Fourth Official" and sometimes a "Fifth Official". The
International Football Association Board managed to define areas of
responsibility, but had clearly given up on job names and went for
numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_referee_%28association_football%29#Fourth_official
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>>
>>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Reference" ought to mean the written or spoken assessment,
>>
>>And when applying to college in the US, it does. You ask people to
>>"write you a reference" that's sent to the college.
>
> Nice use of the passive voice there at the end...I'm told that it's
> common practice for the prospective student to write the reference
> and simply ask the authority figure in question to sign it....r
If so, that's new. When I applied to college, it was understood that
you gave that teacher (or whoever) the form and stamped envelope and
they sent it in. I seem to recall that Stanford had me sign something
stating that I waived any rights to see what they wrote and the one
giving the reference signed something stating that I had not seen it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Don Aitken
>Evan Kirshenbaum writes:
>> It was only when getting my latest soccer ref certification that I
>> learned *why* (sports) referees are called "referees".... For
>> situations in which the captains disagreed, the dispute would be
>> "referred" to a faculty member on the sidelines.
>
>And there are still situations in some sports where certain rulings
>can only be made if a player asks for them.
>
>Most sports: Referee
>Baseball: Umpire
>Tournament bridge: Director
>Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
>
Many sports have more than one level of official. In both cricket and
tennis there is a referee (or match referee) who has authority over
the umpires.
And title inflation will have its way. Soccer used to have linesmen,
but they are now assistant referees.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Soccer now has a "Fourth Official" and sometimes a "Fifth
> Official".
I know about fourth officials (though I've never worked a game that
had one). The fifth official is a new one for me, and isn't in the
official laws. It's not clear what the "variety of tasks" that the
fifth official assists the fourth official with might be, and the link
to the FA site is broken. A search of the IFAB site turns up people
listed as performing that role in World Cup matches and the existence
of them in upcoming tournaments.
The 2009 U20 World Cup also talks about "reserve assistent referees",
but says that the fourth official is the one who replaces either the
referee or AR. The Wikipedia page on ARs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_referee
also talks about
Recent trials, for example at the 2009-10 UEFA Europa League group
stage, have been started to make place for an additional two
assistant referees to be added to the game, positioned behind the
goal lines, in order to "ensure that the Laws of the Game are
upheld, informing the referee of incidents of any kind that he may
otherwise have missed, particularly in key areas of the field like
the penalty area and its surroundings," but only informing the
referee of their observings through a wireless communication
system.
At the levels I work, if I were going to add anybody, I'd put an
unmoving AR on each goal line, whose only job was to decide whether
the ball had crossed the line. The hardest task for the AR, in my
opinion, is being able to call both the goal line and offside when the
ball gets near the goal, and many CRs (myself included) will advise
ARs that offside is their first priority, except when the ball is near
the goal line. To correctly judge "did the ball cross the line?"
(inside or outside the goal) you really have to be standing on the
line, and you can't do that if you're tracking the 2nd last defender.
> The International Football Association Board managed to define areas
> of responsibility, but had clearly given up on job names and went
> for numbers:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_referee_%28association_football%29#Fourth_official
Nah, they were worrying about job names as recently as '96 (after the
fourth official was introduced), when "linesmen" became "assistant
referees".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |is still there.
(650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>R H Draney writes:
>>
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>>>>
>>>>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Reference" ought to mean the written or spoken assessment,
>>>>
>>>>And when applying to college in the US, it does. You ask people
>>>>to "write you a reference" that's sent to the college.
>>>
>>> Nice use of the passive voice there at the end...I'm told that
>>> it's common practice for the prospective student to write the
>>> reference and simply ask the authority figure in question to sign
>>> it....r
>>
>>If so, that's new. When I applied to college, it was understood
>>that you gave that teacher (or whoever) the form and stamped
>>envelope and they sent it in. I seem to recall that Stanford had me
>>sign something stating that I waived any rights to see what they
>>wrote and the one giving the reference signed something stating that
>>I had not seen it.
>
> I think that's fairly standard but signing a waiver is new to me.
> Regardless, it didn't matter, as far as I was concerned, I always
> told the student what I wrote.
The problem isn't the student knowing, it's the student being able to
use what you tell them to decide whether it's a "good enough"
recommendation[1] to send in or asking you to change something. Of
course, you could always tell them ahead of time that you would be a
bad person to ask.
[1] Which, come to think of it, is the word that we actually used.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |Business School.
(650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen
| Harvard Business School
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:11:09 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum writes:
>>> It was only when getting my latest soccer ref certification that I
>>> learned *why* (sports) referees are called "referees".... For
>>> situations in which the captains disagreed, the dispute would be
>>> "referred" to a faculty member on the sidelines.
>>
>>And there are still situations in some sports where certain rulings
>>can only be made if a player asks for them.
>>
>>Most sports: Referee
>>Baseball: Umpire
>>Tournament bridge: Director
>>Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
>>
> Many sports have more than one level of official. In both cricket
> and tennis there is a referee (or match referee) who has authority
> over the umpires.
It's somewhat strange that in many sports, "umpire", which
etymologically means "without peer", "surpassing all others" is both
one of several at that rank and underneath some higher official.
> And title inflation will have its way. Soccer used to have linesmen,
> but they are now assistant referees.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> Mark Brader:
>>> Most sports: Referee
>>> Baseball: Umpire
>
> Nick Spalding:
> Cricket: Umpire
>
>>> Tournament bridge: Director
>>> Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
>>>
>>> Others?
>
> *Others*, please, not more of the same.
Arbitrator (industrial relations court)
Ombudsman
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Mark Brader:
>>>> Most sports: Referee
>>>> Baseball: Umpire
>>
>> Nick Spalding:
>> Cricket: Umpire
>>
>>>> Tournament bridge: Director
>>>> Courtroom (jury trial): Judge
>>>>
>>>> Others?
>>
>> *Others*, please, not more of the same.
>
>
> Perhaps Nick was making a point in response to "Most sports: referee".
> On this side of the pond, both cricket and tennis are quite important
> and they both have umpires, not referees.
Also Australian football.
>
> Newsgroup: moderator (or self-appointed bossy boots, if unmoderated)
>
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Precisely, although I think you meant third, rather than second.
--
Rob Bannister
Mark Brader
> Soccer now has a "Fourth Official" and sometimes a "Fifth Official".
> The International Football Association Board managed to define areas
> of responsibility, but had clearly given up on job names and went for
I am reminded of:
Captain Edward J. Smith
Chief Officer Henry Wilde
First Officer William Murdoch
Second Officer Charles Lightoller
Third Officer Herbert Pitman
Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall
Fifth Officer Harold Lowe
Sixth Officer James Paul Moody
The numbered officers, similarly, all had specific duties.
I believe some other ships of the period had positions numbered
as high as Eighth or Ninth Officer.
--
Mark Brader "The world little knows or cares the storm through
Toronto which you have had to pass. It asks only if you
m...@vex.net brought the ship safely to port." -- Joseph Conrad
Wood Avens
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>> Robert Bannister was saying that he would expect No 3 to be called "the
>> referee" by analogy with other words ending in -ee (like employee, refugee?).
>>
>> But even if it were, I would pronounce them differently:
>>
>> 2. the ref-eree (stress on first syllable)
>> 3. the refer-ee (stress on second syllable)
>>
>
>Precisely, although I think you meant third, rather than second.
No, I think he did mean second. Makes sense to me, not that I've ever
heard anyone pronounce it that way.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:22:14 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> Robert Bannister was saying that he would expect No 3 to be called "the
>>> referee" by analogy with other words ending in -ee (like employee, refugee?).
>>>
>>> But even if it were, I would pronounce them differently:
>>>
>>> 2. the ref-eree (stress on first syllable)
>>> 3. the refer-ee (stress on second syllable)
>>>
>> Precisely, although I think you meant third, rather than second.
>
> No, I think he did mean second. Makes sense to me, not that I've ever
> heard anyone pronounce it that way.
>
In fact, I don't believe I've heard a first syllable stress either.
--
Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Actually I most often hear 2 pronounced as "ref-ree", with equal stress on
both syllables.