Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?

<NameWithheld> wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB

First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.

I respond:
I think the more PC way to put that is "First female commander". I'll check
with those who should know.

P.S. The US Navy can have no practical use for a 224 year old ship.

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 10:23:05 PM UTC-8, Dingbat wrote:
> Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
>
> <NameWithheld> wrote:
> https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB
>
> First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.
>
> I respond:
> I think the more PC way to put that is "First female commander". I'll check
> with those who should know.

I think that is the most straightforward way of identifying who she is, but
not for any PC reasons that I can see. "First female commander" is also
the phrase used in the link you have quoted.
>
> P.S. The US Navy can have no practical use for a 224 year old ship.

Oh, several practical uses. It pays homage to the navy's -- and the nation's --
history. It is a working museum, a tremendous tourist attraction, and good public
relations for the navy. It might even be a way of identifying young men --
and now women, clearly -- who can be recruited to join the navy and go to sea.

bill

On 26 Jan 2022 at 06:47:08, "bil...@shaw.ca" <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 10:23:05 PM UTC-8, Dingbat wrote:
>> Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
>>
>> <NameWithheld> wrote:
>> https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB
>>
>> First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.
>>
>> I respond:
>> I think the more PC way to put that is "First female commander". I'll check
>> with those who should know.
>
> I think that is the most straightforward way of identifying who she is, but
> not for any PC reasons that I can see. "First female commander" is also
> the phrase used in the link you have quoted.
>>
>> P.S. The US Navy can have no practical use for a 224 year old ship.
>
> Oh, several practical uses. It pays homage to the navy's -- and the nation's --
> history. It is a working museum, a tremendous tourist attraction, and good public
> relations for the navy. It might even be a way of identifying young men --
> and now women, clearly -- who can be recruited to join the navy and go to sea.
>

The Royal Navy has HMS Victory (built 1765 in Chatham) in Portsmouth.
Now the Flagship of the First Sea Lord and a museum.

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:

> On 26 Jan 2022 at 06:47:08, "bil...@shaw.ca" <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 10:23:05 PM UTC-8, Dingbat wrote:
> >> Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
> >>
> >> <NameWithheld> wrote:
> >> https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comm
an-idUSRTS4Q8QB
> >>
> >> First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.
> >>
> >> I respond:
> >> I think the more PC way to put that is "First female commander". I'll check
> >> with those who should know.
> >
> > I think that is the most straightforward way of identifying who she is, but
> > not for any PC reasons that I can see. "First female commander" is also
> > the phrase used in the link you have quoted.
> >>
> >> P.S. The US Navy can have no practical use for a 224 year old ship.
> >
> > Oh, several practical uses. It pays homage to the navy's -- and the
> > nation's -- history. It is a working museum, a tremendous tourist
> > attraction, and good public relations for the navy. It might even be a
> > way of identifying young men -- and now women, clearly -- who can be
> > recruited to join the navy and go to sea.
> >
>
> The Royal Navy has HMS Victory (built 1765 in Chatham) in Portsmouth. Now
> the Flagship of the First Sea Lord and a museum.

Yes, a flagship that cannot float or fire a gun.
USS Constitution does both.

I remember reading somewhere that she is hauled around
every now and then to change the weather side,

Jan

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:23:02 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
>
>
><NameWithheld> wrote:
>https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB
>
>First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.
>
>
>I respond:
>I think the more PC way to put that is "First female commander". I'll check
>with those who should know.

I'm not interested in PC ways to say anything, but to me "female" is
better. "Female" is often an adjective, but "woman" is usually a noun.

In article <e75b95c0-3865-43f2-8048-15cc2d8f8a40n@googlegroups.com>,
Dingbat <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
>
>
><NameWithheld> wrote:
>https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB
>
>First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.

No, although I might have preferred "First woman in command".

This is a subject which has been in some flux in recent years, and
usage is not entirely settled. In general, both words are acceptable
and considered neutral. However, "female" should never be used on
contrast to "man" or unmarked nouns, only to "male".[1] Furthermore,
"female" has a bit of a clinical or David Attenborough feel ("The
female leaves her chicks behind, abandons the nest, and takes command
of a centuries-old warship") which can be criticized. (There's a very
antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
that is objectionable.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:39:30 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

> (There's a very
>antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
>women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
>that is objectionable.)

Ageist! John Morgan is 71 years-old. Bob Costas is a mere two years
younger. Would you describe him as an "antique" or a "slip of a boy"?

You raise an interesting point, but how would you suggest that Morgan
identify the team or the competitors when discussing the US's chances
at medaling when he switches from discussing the male competitors to
the female competitors?

ObAUE: It was not without thought to use "medaling". It's a term
disparaged by many, but in the world of sports announcing and writing,
the longer "to win a medal" can become repetitious. The announcers
and writers, when speaking of or writing about competitions where
medals are awarded often use one term in one place and then, to avoid
the repetition, another term later.

I suspect that the disparaging is more common by those who are not all
that interested in the sport and are more interested in the language
used. Those of us who are reading/listening for the sports
information don't give the word any thought.

I would not accept "podiuming", though. A reach too far.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On 26/01/2022 19:27, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:39:30 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
>> (There's a very
>> antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
>> women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
>> that is objectionable.)
>
> Ageist! John Morgan is 71 years-old. Bob Costas is a mere two years
> younger. Would you describe him as an "antique" or a "slip of a boy"?

"Antique" is fine, albeit some might say inaccurate (29 years to go).
Let Garrett Wollman call the ol' codge whatever he likes, and, by the
same token, whether John Morgan is 71 or 101 he can call the women
athletes whatever he damn well likes. If his viewers don't like it, they
can get their bobsled announcements elsewhere. Objectionable? Pah!

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

* Ken Blake:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:23:02 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
> <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
>>
>>
>><NameWithheld> wrote:
>>https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB
>>
>>First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.
>>
>>
>>I respond:
>>I think the more PC way to put that is "First female commander". I'll check
>>with those who should know.
>
> I'm not interested in PC ways to say anything, but to me "female" is
> better. "Female" is often an adjective, but "woman" is usually a noun.

Unless I'm mistaken, Dr. Quinn is only called a "woman doctor", not a
"female doctor". So it's not new.

Let's check if that's an anachronism:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=woman+doctor%2Cfemale+doctor&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwoman%20doctor%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfemale%20doctor%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cwoman%20doctor%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfemale%20doctor%3B%2Cc0>

That suggests that throughout the 20th century, "woman" was strongly
preferred in this combination. Before 1880 and since about 2012, it's
the opposite (and hence, "Dr Quinn" may be misleading.)

--
Some things are taken away from you, some you leave behind-and
some you carry with you, world without end.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.31

* Dingbat:

> Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?

Depends ... can cats apply?

--
Nobody's God says hate your neighbor
Even if the neighbor doesn't believe in God
Put aside your religion do your God a favor
-- The Roches, Everyone is Good

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ken Blake:

> > I'm not interested in PC ways to say anything, but to me "female" is
> > better. "Female" is often an adjective, but "woman" is usually a noun.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, Dr. Quinn is only called a "woman doctor", not a
> "female doctor". So it's not new.

I wouldn't know, never having seen the show, but its title is "Dr.
Quinn, Medicine Woman,"

FYI, Jane Seymour is now (hilariously) playing a horny old broad
in the Assisted Living center on *B Positive*. Heh, she's almost
exactly 10 months older than me.

In article <c973vgh2q0ebdadic5ckqdk2tcs2rc2pdd@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:39:30 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
>(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
>> (There's a very
>>antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
>>women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
>>that is objectionable.)
>
>Ageist! John Morgan is 71 years-old. Bob Costas is a mere two years
>younger. Would you describe him as an "antique" or a "slip of a boy"?

I don't know; I don't wantch any of the sports that Costas announces
(assuming he still does) so I don't have any experience of him
nattering on about events that took place before any of the current
athletes were born like Morgan does.

>You raise an interesting point, but how would you suggest that Morgan
>identify the team or the competitors when discussing the US's chances
>at medaling when he switches from discussing the male competitors to
>the female competitors?

That's not really a situation that coems up in real life, since Morgan
owns the company that produces the broadcasts for the federation: he's
not beeing paid to ramble on about the US team's chances; he's
supposed to give equal prominence to every nation, even the ones that
have no chance. Even when he is rambling on about Olympic
qualifications for some national team or other, the men's and women's
events are separate broadcasts, so he would be describing the action
in a two-woman bobsled race, and then a four-man bobsled race some
hours later. And yet, when it's the women's events, he is over and
over again discussing "these [long pause] female atheletes" whereas
the men are just "men" or "athletes" or "[demonym]s" or what have you.

>ObAUE: It was not without thought to use "medaling". It's a term
>disparaged by many, but in the world of sports announcing and writing,
>the longer "to win a medal" can become repetitious. The announcers
>and writers, when speaking of or writing about competitions where
>medals are awarded often use one term in one place and then, to avoid
>the repetition, another term later.

In international sports, there is often a "flower ceremony", separate
from the medal ceremony, in which flowers are given to the best
competitors. For most sports, the flowers are given to the top six
athletes or teams, and the medals are given to the top three, but in
bobsled -- at least at Morgan's home track in Lake Placid -- the
flowers are given to the top three at the end of the event and the
medals are awarded to the top *six* at the end of the day, for all of
that day's events. Fourth place is often jokingly called the "wood
medal" but all of the medals at Lake Placid Bobsled and Skeleton World
Cups are identical (and I think reused from year to year), with
different colored ribbons for the top three. (See
<https://photos.bimajority.org/2019-20-BMW-IBSF-Skeleton-World-Cup-Lake-Placid/2019-20-BMW-IBSF-Skeleton-World-Cup-Lake-Placid-Medal-Ceremo/i-6P25QKq>.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

In article <sssg4v$1beh$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>, I wrote:
>hours later. And yet, when it's the women's events, he is over and
>over again discussing "these [long pause] female atheletes" whereas
>the men are just "men" or "athletes" or "[demonym]s" or what have you.

Remembered what I wanted to say here. It's as if his first reflex is
to say "ladies" or "girls" and holds back because he knows that's
patronizing, but is unable to retrieve "woman" from his data bank so
he falls back on the robotic "female". (Of course, when one of the
women is unable to race and is invited to do guest color-commentatary,
they will often say "girls" about their fellow competitors, and that's
considered acceptable because it's not a 71-year-old white dude
calling a 28-year-old Black woman a "girl".)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On 26/01/2022 22:04, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <sssg4v$1beh$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>, I wrote:
>> hours later. And yet, when it's the women's events, he is over and
>> over again discussing "these [long pause] female atheletes" whereas
>> the men are just "men" or "athletes" or "[demonym]s" or what have you.
>
> Remembered what I wanted to say here. It's as if his first reflex is
> to say "ladies" or "girls" and holds back because he knows that's
> patronizing, but is unable to retrieve "woman" from his data bank so
> he falls back on the robotic "female". (Of course, when one of the
> women is unable to race and is invited to do guest color-commentatary,
> they will often say "girls" about their fellow competitors, and that's
> considered acceptable because it's not a 71-year-old white dude
> calling a 28-year-old Black woman a "girl".)

Some people consider it acceptable purely because freedom of speech. It
would be pleasant to think that people had better things to do with
their time than sit in judgement over whether some old guy had violated
artificial new speech restriction.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Ken Blake:
>
>>> I'm not interested in PC ways to say anything, but to me "female" is
>>> better. "Female" is often an adjective, but "woman" is usually a noun.
>>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, Dr. Quinn is only called a "woman doctor", not a
>> "female doctor". So it's not new.
>
> I wouldn't know, never having seen the show, but its title is "Dr.
> Quinn, Medicine Woman,"

That's the title the Cheyenne give her.

The settlers are sometimes surprised to see a "woman doctor" or "lady
doctor":

| Never met no lady doctor.

| They said a woman doctor could not
| survive alone on the new frontier.

| Well, if you were a man, yes, but most
| people have no confidence in lady doctors.

| But they didn't teach the people
| how to accept a woman doctor!

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

In article <sssh77$mq3$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>Some people consider [calling an adult woman "girl"] acceptable
>purely because freedom of speech.

Those people are wrong.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On 26/01/2022 22:46, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <sssh77$mq3$1@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Some people consider [calling an adult woman "girl"] acceptable
>> purely because freedom of speech.
>
> Those people are wrong.

That's certainly an opinion. And it's wrong. (And round and round we go.)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

* Garrett Wollman:

> In article <e75b95c0-3865-43f2-8048-15cc2d8f8a40n@googlegroups.com>,
> Dingbat <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Isn't "female commander" better than "woman commander"?
>>
>>
>><NameWithheld> wrote:
>>https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/uss-constitution-has-first-female-comman-idUSRTS4Q8QB
>>
>>First woman commander since George Washington commissioned the ship.
>
> No, although I might have preferred "First woman in command".
>
> This is a subject which has been in some flux in recent years, and
> usage is not entirely settled. In general, both words are acceptable
> and considered neutral. However, "female" should never be used on
> contrast to "man" or unmarked nouns, only to "male".[1] Furthermore,
> "female" has a bit of a clinical or David Attenborough feel ("The
> female leaves her chicks behind, abandons the nest, and takes command
> of a centuries-old warship") which can be criticized. (There's a very
> antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
> women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
> that is objectionable.)

Of course that's part of a larger issue that still occurs in younger
people and with more neutral wordings.

For a lot of people, there's soccer (or football), and there's women's
soccer (football). "Men's soccer (football)" is rarely made explicit.

--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:57:51 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <c973vgh2q0ebdadic5ckqdk2tcs2rc2pdd@4ax.com>,
>Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:39:30 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
>>(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>
>>> (There's a very
>>>antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
>>>women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
>>>that is objectionable.)
>>
>>Ageist! John Morgan is 71 years-old. Bob Costas is a mere two years
>>younger. Would you describe him as an "antique" or a "slip of a boy"?
>
>I don't know; I don't wantch any of the sports that Costas announces
>(assuming he still does) so I don't have any experience of him
>nattering on about events that took place before any of the current
>athletes were born like Morgan does.

There were a number of article about him when John Madden died just a
few weeks ago. Most of the favorable comments about him were about
how much people enjoyed him nattering on about players and plays in
the past and anecdotes that were barely related to the (American
football) game he was announcing or providing color for.

I tune out most of the running dialog that the current football
announcers feel obligated to supply. They seem to feel that even a
few seconds of silence is unacceptable. When I watch a game on TV, I
can see what happened. I don't need that play dissected like they're
doing a post-op forensic analysis.

If they're going to continually chatter, give me some nattering.
>
>>ObAUE: It was not without thought to use "medaling". It's a term
>>disparaged by many, but in the world of sports announcing and writing,
>>the longer "to win a medal" can become repetitious. The announcers
>>and writers, when speaking of or writing about competitions where
>>medals are awarded often use one term in one place and then, to avoid
>>the repetition, another term later.
>
>In international sports, there is often a "flower ceremony", separate
>from the medal ceremony, in which flowers are given to the best
>competitors.

Are references made to "flowering"?

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On 26/01/2022 22:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 26/01/2022 22:46, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <sssh77$mq3$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Some people consider [calling an adult woman "girl"] acceptable
>>> purely because freedom of speech.
>>
>> Those people are wrong.
>
> That's certainly an opinion. And it's wrong. (And round and round we go.)

Hmm. Correct though my reply is, it doesn't advance the argument. So let
me try again.

Something which has been accepted is, by definition, acceptable. I'm
perfectly happy to accept that it's okay for people to call adult women
girls if they want... AND it's perfectly acceptable for people to be
outraged by the temerity of some people choosing their own words. By all
means, knock yourself out and be offended; but if something has been
accepted, clearly it is acceptable. One might reasonably say "*I* won't
accept it, so it's unacceptable *to me*", and that's fine, but if you do
so it's just a sign of your intolerance towards people who dare to
disagree with you about what may and what may not be said.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On 26-Jan-22 23:22, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:57:51 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>> In international sports, there is often a "flower ceremony", separate
>>from the medal ceremony, in which flowers are given to the best
>> competitors.
>
> Are references made to "flowering"?

The floriferous few? Floridians?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:25:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 26/01/2022 22:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 26/01/2022 22:46, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>> In article <sssh77$mq3$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some people consider [calling an adult woman "girl"] acceptable
>>>> purely because freedom of speech.
>>>
>>> Those people are wrong.
>>
>> That's certainly an opinion. And it's wrong. (And round and round we go.)
>
>Hmm. Correct though my reply is, it doesn't advance the argument. So let
>me try again.
>
>Something which has been accepted is, by definition, acceptable. I'm
>perfectly happy to accept that it's okay for people to call adult women
>girls if they want...

My wife will appreciate your endorsement. She has a "Girl's Night
Out" once a month with some of her female friends she has known for
30-some years.

When she returns home after such a night, though, I don't say "What's
new with the girls?". I would, instead, say "What's new with your
friends?". Not that I object to "Girls" as a description of a group
of female very Senior Citizens, it's just that I naturally go to
"friends" in that context.

You could consider it a case of "I can say that, but you can't."

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On 27/01/22 10:22, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:57:51 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>> In international sports, there is often a "flower ceremony", separate
>>from the medal ceremony, in which flowers are given to the best
>> competitors.
>
> Are references made to "flowering"?

And does a disputed result ever lead to deflowering?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:22:31 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:57:51 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
> >In article <c973vgh2q0ebdadic...@4ax.com>,
> >Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:39:30 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> >>(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >>
> >>> (There's a very
> >>>antique bobsled announcer named John Morgan who constantly calls the
> >>>women "female athletes" but never calls the men "male athletes" --
> >>>that is objectionable.)
> >>
> >>Ageist! John Morgan is 71 years-old. Bob Costas is a mere two years
> >>younger. Would you describe him as an "antique" or a "slip of a boy"?
> >
> >I don't know; I don't wantch any of the sports that Costas announces
> >(assuming he still does) so I don't have any experience of him
> >nattering on about events that took place before any of the current
> >athletes were born like Morgan does.
> There were a number of article about him when John Madden died just a
> few weeks ago. Most of the favorable comments about him were about
> how much people enjoyed him nattering on about players and plays in
> the past and anecdotes that were barely related to the (American
> football) game he was announcing or providing color for.
>
> I tune out most of the running dialog that the current football
> announcers feel obligated to supply. They seem to feel that even a
> few seconds of silence is unacceptable. When I watch a game on TV, I
> can see what happened. I don't need that play dissected like they're
> doing a post-op forensic analysis.

A number of years ago, the CFL tried an experiment. They showed a few
games without any announcers. It never went further than that, much to
my disappointment. It was refreshing to not only avoid the inane
chatter, but to be able to actually hear the penalties being called
without some bozo yakking over top of them.

>
> If they're going to continually chatter, give me some nattering.
> >
> >>ObAUE: It was not without thought to use "medaling". It's a term
> >>disparaged by many, but in the world of sports announcing and writing,
> >>the longer "to win a medal" can become repetitious. The announcers
> >>and writers, when speaking of or writing about competitions where
> >>medals are awarded often use one term in one place and then, to avoid
> >>the repetition, another term later.
> >
> >In international sports, there is often a "flower ceremony", separate
> >from the medal ceremony, in which flowers are given to the best
> >competitors.
> Are references made to "flowering"?
> --
>
> Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On 27/01/2022 01:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:25:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/2022 22:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2022 22:46, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>>> In article <sssh77$mq3$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some people consider [calling an adult woman "girl"] acceptable
>>>>> purely because freedom of speech.
>>>>
>>>> Those people are wrong.
>>>
>>> That's certainly an opinion. And it's wrong. (And round and round we go.)
>>
>> Hmm. Correct though my reply is, it doesn't advance the argument. So let
>> me try again.
>>
>> Something which has been accepted is, by definition, acceptable. I'm
>> perfectly happy to accept that it's okay for people to call adult women
>> girls if they want...
>
> My wife will appreciate your endorsement.

Well, that's good, but of course my whole point is that neither she nor
anyone else needs *anyone's* endorsement.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within