Rank: Super forum user 
|
Could I appeal to all forum users to not use jargon or abbreviations known only in their specialised area. I actually think it is unprofesional - if you did this in a "report" or academic paper without defining it you would be rightly criticised. In my view this should be a condition of using this forum, to benefit everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest 
|
Agree with you part way. I would not make it a condition of using this forum. You would end up with 10 members contributing and all the rest blanked out.
There aren't enough contributors to the forums anyway - you see the same old names all the time (mine included).
I note you asked what CLEAPSS was in another post and also note the reply you were given.
This highlights the uniqueness of each industry and why I find it fascinating to read all the posts to get a handle on other professionals problems. I certainly could not and would not comment on probably 95% of all posts (if not more).
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Pikeman,
I can't agree more.
IMHO the English language has been FUBAR and FWIW IDK if I can take much more.
IIRC when I was a school kid I was warned about this but it seems most young people TNN (although that is TBC).
OK, GTG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Pikeman wrote: if you did this in a "report" or academic paper without defining it you would be rightly criticised. This isn't a report or academic paper. Two days ago you posted "Can someone who is CMIOSH use the IOSH logo on their website, CV etc? Finally does this also apply to the NEBOSH logo?" Can you clarify please - is it only acronymic jargon that you don't understand that's unprofessional?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Pikeman, might it be the case that use of "jargon or abbreviations known only in their specialised area" discourages ill-informed postings by well-meaning contributors as well as the trolls?
If I don't know what a poster is saying I can usually find out by an internet enquiry, if I want and then reply if I have anything I want to add. Often I'm neither sufficiently knowledgeable nor interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
hi all,
Speaking of Jargon, for some reason my line manager wants a list of how accidents and incidents etc.. are defined and I stupidly said I would give him a hand........Damn!!!. I have managed to find how IMCA (International Marine Contractors Association) define them but I cant find the HSE, SEPA/EPA etc..
Could someone possibly direct me to where I could find this information. I was hoping that there would be a document that lists how each governing body / industry leader would define such terms (accident, Lost time incident, Restricted work case fist aid treatment case etc...)
TYAILFTYR (Thank you and I look forward to your reply) - Sorry bad joke , but I agree with the using of unknown abbreviations being a bit of a pain, I am surrounded by them in my secto and it is very hard to find what they mean on the internet believe it or not
Thanks
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A sense of proprtion would however be allowed - so I would not apply this rule to commonly used acronyms such as "CV" and "NEBOSH".
Otherwise, I stand by my original point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
When I was of school age i used to delight in knowing what all the acronyms stood for. My favourite, that i still remember after 50 years, is SHAPE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ryan.Donald wrote:hi all,
Speaking of Jargon, for some reason my line manager wants a list of how accidents and incidents etc.. are defined and I stupidly said I would give him a hand........Damn!!!. I have managed to find how IMCA (International Marine Contractors Association) define them but I cant find the HSE, SEPA/EPA etc..
Could someone possibly direct me to where I could find this information. I was hoping that there would be a document that lists how each governing body / industry leader would define such terms (accident, Lost time incident, Restricted work case fist aid treatment case etc...)
Marine industry - see SI 2012 No 1743 - splits "accidents" into four categories, "a very serious marine casualty", "a serious marine casualty", "a marine casualty" and "a marine incident", each with it's own definition and requirements in respect of reporting and investigating. (see Reg 3(1))
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
redken wrote:When I was of school age i used to delight in knowing what all the acronyms stood for. My favourite, that i still remember after 50 years, is SHAPE. Ken, did you school in Belgium? Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ryan.Donald wrote:hi all,
Speaking of Jargon, for some reason my line manager wants a list of how accidents and incidents etc.. are defined and I stupidly said I would give him a hand........Damn!!!. I have managed to find how IMCA (International Marine Contractors Association) define them but I cant find the HSE, SEPA/EPA etc..
....
Ryan There isn't a "correct" definition of accident and incident in H&S (OOPS an acronym!). The HSE, ROSPA, OHSAS18001 are all different (OOPS there I go again!). I did a paper recently in which I tried to define the terms and I took ten pages, and even then it was incomplete. in reality, accident isn't to difficult to give a definition for unless you include ill-health, but incident, that's a different story. Much of the definition of incident is in the perception of the observer, i.e. what they expect to be a normal condition, and what deviation from that condition is considered acceptable. Consider RIDOR (oh heck, nobody will understand this!), couple of pages to define a reportable injury, but over twenty to define a dangerous occurrence, and that only deals with the most serious "incidents".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pikeman wrote:A sense of proprtion would however be allowed - so I would not apply this rule to commonly used acronyms such as "CV" and "NEBOSH".
So it really is the case that this proposed restriction applies only to acronymic jargon you don't understand - NEBOSH is not a commonly used acronym. It's specific to a very narrow sector of the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
OK (is that in itself an acronym for okay?!) hands up, I just used RRFSO in the fire safety thread.
I don't have a big problem, if I don't recognise an acronym, I go and have a look for it on Google.
As a total aside, I have just discovered that I have downloaded the US version of Firefox and it doesn't like the way that ai have spelled recognise :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think it makes people sound professional... with something to hide ;-)
Acronyms are for lazy people IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Zimmy wrote:I think it makes people sound professional... with something to hide ;-)
Acronyms are for lazy people IMHO
A very good reason why I have never read or sent a "text" message. Hate PMs too! Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Zimmy wrote:I think it makes people sound professional... with something to hide ;-)
Acronyms are for lazy people IMHO
Oh, the irony!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Canopener wrote:OK (is that in itself an acronym for okay?!) hands up, I just used RRFSO in the fire safety thread.
I don't have a big problem, if I don't recognise an acronym, I go and have a look for it on Google.
As a total aside, I have just discovered that I have downloaded the US version of Firefox and it doesn't like the way that ai have spelled recognise :-( Wait until you see what it thinks of the way you spelled 'i' ;-) You'll be thinking OMG!!!!! IMHO, the OP lost the argument by trying to justify 'NEBOSH' as a commonly used acronym. Roll on Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Being pedantic but, it's not strictly correct that academic papers do not allow for initials or acronyms. They are normally acceptable provided they are commonly used e.g. UK. Like wise on this forum you will see many that are familiar - COSHH, HSWA, SSOW, ALARP, etc.
I personally have no issues with the use of acronyms and if I don't know what it means I ask Mr Google - simples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As a well-established pedant can I point out that many of the examples given here are abbrieviations not acronyms: acronyms form a pronouncable word. SHAPE, as referred to earlier is an acronym whereas HSWA is probably not pronouncable in any language.
I'll get my coat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was hoping this would run until POETS day. Have a GR8 w'end all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Can I offer NORWICH?
SWALK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Right lets classify this jargon.
1. General Health and Safety Jargon- acronyms/abbreviations etc that people who work in H&S will recognise ( but it may be necessary to remind them- do so politely without point scoring) eg RA= Risk assessment, COSHH, PUWER, RRFSO- (Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005)etc.
2. Those that apply to a particular sector such as CHAS, etc for construction. If you use them then expect to be challenged. These abbreviations can be obscure- a Google search is likely to unearth several plausible alternatives. Remember the web is global and some of our forum users are not based in the UK.
3. In house abbreviations and jargon- never put this on the forum without explanation: I could talk about the H&S role of HoPs but even explaining that they are heads of programme would be meaningless to someone outside my organisation.
Have a nice weekend
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Canopener wrote:Zimmy wrote:I think it makes people sound professional... with something to hide ;-)
Acronyms are for lazy people IMHO
Oh, the irony! Oh, the irony was lost on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.