Forum menu
It's not enough that people don't have the bottle to say "problem" when they mean it, but they can't even have an issue *with* something. Oooo no. That would be too confrontational so it's issues "around" something. MTFU junior management.
yes, that's true. normally, it's not even "I take issue with that" or "I have an issue with that" but "there's an issue around x", as if it were an agreed objective fact.
"Business language seems to warrant formality, but actually it's devoid of technical content and is marketing-led. "
This isn't right - in fact, I have a problem with it. 😛 When I worked in "business" (consultancy of a specific type, not a real job like engineering, obviously) we did have actual stuff to do that wasn't marketing. (In other words, we made the product and sold it, we weren't just selling the electronic gold that a bunch of underappreciated geniuses in black t-shirts created). And I and most of my colleagues were happy to talk about problems, glitches, ****ups and other things that aren't issues.
As a techy-tw*t our IT systems don't have problems they have features. 🙂
Issuette <grrrrr> 👿
Can I also introduce the word loose as the past tense of lost - you don't loose something! You lose it or have lost it. The past tense of lost is lose.
E****ing US English based spellcheckers is what I blame for the proliferation of the use of loose, for the past tense of lost, amongst those whose jeans are so loose their (under)pants are showing.
SFB - you said (talking about my post I think?!):
To my mind, an argument stands or falls on its self consistency and relevance, not the personality of its author.
Suggesting I agreed based on the the personality of the author (you). I didn't. I simply read the thread properly and noted who said what, then realised my opinion was in line with yours, which is a rarity. And therefore mentioned that 😀