Zustimmung. Ein "foreman" kann sicherlich ein Ingenieur sein, ist es aber in meiner Erfahrung eher nicht.

supported.
the 'Erfahrung' that a foreman 'might' be an engineer is immaterial.
foreman describes what a particular worker in a particular circumstance does.
engineer describes what a particular individual has learned

just as foreman is not a trade that can be learned, but an occupation actively done, engineer describes what someone has been trained to do, but not necessarily what they actually do. I know of many engineers who do jobs having nothing to do with their training, but are still,of course, engineers.

odondon irl,
The comment that you made to hh was unecessary and hypocritical:
"the 'Erfahrung' that a foreman 'might' [can, of course,] be an engineer is immaterial."
This is a forum; I believe hh should have the right to express his views without such rude criticism.
You yourself have added, "I know of many engineers who do jobs having nothing to do with their training, but are still, of course, engineers.", which is also "immaterial" in exactly the same way that hh's comment is. You have already made this point and are backing it up with personal experience. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
In fact, the entire last paragraph of your comment is unecessary. You are just repeating yourself.
There was no reason to respond to hh, as his point is entirely valid in my opinion: A foreman can, of course, be an engineer, but it is in my experience generally not the case.
kind regards,

hh,
I hope that by using the pronoun "his", I have not offended. It is impossible for me to tell from "hh" whether you are a man or a woman and I am (unfortunately) not in the habit of using "his or her" instead of just "his", in short, I am not politically correct.
sincerely,

@Ami Tschann: Würde ich mich dermaßen leicht von einer männlichen Anrede fühlen, müßte ich meinen Namen eindeutig wählen. Allerdings tendiere auch ich dazu, das Geschlecht zu wählen, was wahrscheinlicher ist (ein Ingenieur aber die Kindergärtnerin), da ich die ständige Verwendung beider Formen für unnötig und nervtötend halt.
Ansonsten muß ich mich bei Dir für Deine Unterstützung bedanken, da ich zumindest etwas verwundert über O.is Kommentar war.
Allerdings habe ich O.i. schon häufiger hier gelesen und weiß, daß es nicht seine Art ist, Leute anzugreifen. Von daher bin ich einfach davon ausgegangen, daß seine Wortwahl in diesem Fall einfach unglücklich war.

Bist Du neu in diesem Forum, da ich mir nicht sicher bin, ob ich Deinen Namen schon gelesen habe?

@Ami Tschann - thank you for your criticism - I was entirely unaware that my comments my be seen as being a personal attack. and you are correct in mentioning that my comments were partly of the same nature.

on the other hand, my comments were directed at the original posting, and not at hh's comment (my error, I hadn't seen the similarities), and referred to the qualities inherent in the terms themselves, and not to whether we have experience of the one term being imbued with the other. what I meant is, that it is unimportant whether or not a foreman might an engineer, since the two terms describe different 'processes', if you will.

@hh - please accept my heartfelt apologies should you have been offended by what I wrote - neither were you the target of any antagonism, nor was any intended.

supported 100% :-)

@O.i: Als letzter Kommentar dazu von meiner Seite - auch wenn mir Deine Bemerkung durchaus auffiel, habe ich es durchaus nicht als Angriff oder Beleidigung gesehen.
To be o-t: I hope it is because of not enough time that you make yourself that sparce in crossing-over? (Therefore something that may change.)

Foreman = "Ober-Cowboy"

bekannt aus der Western-Serie "Die Leute von der Shiloh Ranch"