firedoc5 Posted January 2, 2009 Author Posted January 2, 2009 So I can't use the term "HOSE MONKEY" any more--------How about HOSE JOCKEY or HOSER or maybe a LADDER CRAWLER or a SMOKE JOCKEY those were not on the lists... SO BE GOOD HOSER'S[/font:515ca57145] I guess there will always be certain terms of endearment for the profession. :wink:
HellsBells Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 "AN ACCIDENT THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN – Best-laid mayhem. “This means some accidents need to happen, for whatever reason, I can't figure.” — Thomas Price, Orlando, Fla. " This reminds me about a recent trend in semantics that is a pet peeve of mine. The changing of the term "Motor Vehicle Accident" (MVA) to "Motor Vehicle Collision" (MVC). The ridiculous explanation behind this change of phrase? The term "Accident" in MVA suggests that the event was unavoidable and could not be prevented, the term collision in MVC is an objective term that reenforces the fact that the event can be prevented. This was in a department memo send out by management. Maybe its just me, but I don't understand what the fuck it even means, or how changing the way a car crash is described will prevent any future "collisions"
firedoc5 Posted January 3, 2009 Author Posted January 3, 2009 This reminds me about a recent trend in semantics that is a pet peeve of mine. The changing of the term "Motor Vehicle Accident" (MVA) to "Motor Vehicle Collision" (MVC). The ridiculous explanation behind this change of phrase? The term "Accident" in MVA suggests that the event was unavoidable and could not be prevented, the term collision in MVC is an objective term that reenforces the fact that the event can be prevented. This was in a department memo send out by management. Maybe its just me, but I don't understand what the fuck it even means, or how changing the way a car crash is described will prevent any future "collisions" Like TKO or KVO. You say tomato and you say toma'-to.
Capman Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 The changing of the term "Motor Vehicle Accident" (MVA) to "Motor Vehicle Collision" (MVC). The ridiculous explanation behind this change of phrase? The term "Accident" in MVA suggests that the event was unavoidable and could not be prevented, the term collision in MVC is an objective term that reenforces the fact that the event can be prevented. This was in a department memo send out by management. Maybe its just me, but I don't understand what the fuck it even means, or how changing the way a car crash is described will prevent any future "collisions" This is where we will get conflicting stories on the term change. We were told in a PHTLS class not long ago that the term change was due to the lesser significance of the word "accident". In other words; spilling a glass of milk is an "accident" or stubbing your toe is an "accident", however; the destruction of a multi-ton vehicle as it collides with another object and the subsequent kinematics, prompted them to change the term from Motor Vehicle "accident" to Motor Vehicle "Collision/Crash" in order amplify the significance of the term. Any other feedback on the term change. I'd love to hear it.
Richard B the EMT Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 The "Term Change" I await is at noon, eastern standard time, on January 20, 2009, on the steps of the U S Capitol Building. Good, bad, or indifferent, the world is going to be watching!
Dustdevil Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 This reminds me about a recent trend in semantics that is a pet peeve of mine. The changing of the term "Motor Vehicle Accident" (MVA) to "Motor Vehicle Collision" (MVC). Not exactly recent. That started in the mid 1980's.
Recommended Posts