Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gender-free "he" [was: Re: "16 and 276 are 292"? No. [was: Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?]]]

From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:52:55 GMT

Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:23:40 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > In this case, he instigated a new topic -- an attack on stylists who
> > recognize that there is no "gender-free neutral masculine singular
> > pronoun" --
>
> I would ask the muddleheaded Daniels how a pronoun could be
> gender-free and masculine at the same time, but I'm afraid
> he would try to tell me and get even more screwed up in the
> process.

Just quoting bits of Cunningham, who makes the point for me. The
traditional masculine pronoun is inherently _not_ gender-free.

Now that he has (once again) been shown up for the fool he is, perhaps
he'll have the sense (and grace) to retire to lick his octogenarian
wounds. Apparently you _can't_ teach an old dog new tricks.

> His implication that I crossposted to "instigate"* a new
> topic is either a deliberate fabrication or another
> demonstration of his inability to read with comprehension.
> The subject of traditional gender-free "he" arose in a
> footnote in an ongoing crossposted thread on another
> subject. A response to that footnote was crossposted, so
> courtesy demanded that comments on the response be
> crossposted.
>
> * About "instigate". I suspect he meant to say "initiate"
> but in his muddleheaded way wrote "instigate" instead. To
> say that I *instigated* an attack would mean that I incited
> or urged others to attack. But in sigh.lang they probably
> don't bother about what words mean; they're too busy
> discussing how to retrofit voting machines.

No, that's a task Republicans specialize in. 

-- 
Peter T. Daniels                       grammatim@att.net

Relevant Pages