[156851] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: guys != gender neutral
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lorell Hathcock)
Thu Sep 27 17:34:43 2012
From: "Lorell Hathcock" <lorell@hathcock.org>
To: "'Landon Stewart'" <lstewart@superb.net>, "'Owen DeLong'" <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABgOHguBThgipVjrUdSy79z5ET9hEGALHh1OvWUUHGHm1qr4oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:34:36 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We may not all be guys. We may not all be gals. But we are definitely all
CLOWNS. This is a substitution that should be acceptable to all and it
really works.
Sales-clown. Yep!
Mail-clown. Yep!
Fire-clown. Yep!
Police-clown. Yep!
Congress-clown. Yep! Yep!
-----Original Message-----
From: Landon Stewart [mailto:lstewart@superb.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:56 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute
> for {guys,gals}?
>
> Owen
>
>
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'.
What's up humans?
Can I get you humans to drink?
This rarely offends anyone.
--
Landon Stewart <LStewart@Superb.Net>
Sr. Administrator
Systems Engineering
Superb Internet Corp - 888-354-6128 x 4199 Web hosting and more "Ahead of
the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
