Well, I know I am not supposed to be an ass - BUT - THAT IS A JOKE
c'mon - do you jump on every bandwagon in the hopes of not offending people who have modified a word to appease their own sense of self worth? I suppose you wont type the word "bananna" because the press book says some people look at that word as sexual? Human's are a species, not a sex. This is like the guy getting fired for using the word - "Niggardly" - a word with no racist definition or connotation, but sounds like the word "nigger". I tell you what, when you get an androgenous language all worked out, and all the world signed on with no-one getting offended, then I'll take it seriously. Until then, I'm trashing that concept - a bad meme to start.
Bill Roh
On Friday, May 07, 1999 2:32 PM, Richard Aynesworthy
[SMTP:overload@fastmail.ca] wrote:
> ...no special definition, I've just encountered a number of people
> who feel that the traditional spelling (huMAN) is exclusionary. I'm
> not done thinking about how I feel about it, but I'd rather bother
> people with alternate spellings than bother them by seeming (at least
> from their perspective) to discount their gender.
>
> -psypher
>
>
> > Richard Aynesworthy,
> >
> > I've noticed that you repeatedly using the word "humyn." Does this
> > alternate spelling of "human" denote a special definition? If you've
> > already posted on that topic, just point me to that (those)
> > post(s) in the archive. Thanks.
> >
> > -KMO
> ______________________________________________________________________
> http://fastmail.ca Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians
>