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

From: Maria Conlon (mariaconlon001_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/20/05

Next message: see sig for domain: "Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gender-free "he" [was: Re: "16 and 276 are 292"? No. [was: Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?]]]"
Previous message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gender-free "he" [was: Re: "16 and 276 are 292"? No. [was: Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?]]]"
Next in thread: see sig for domain: "Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gender-free "he" [was: Re: "16 and 276 are 292"? No. [was: Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?]]]"
Reply: see sig for domain: "Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gender-free "he" [was: Re: "16 and 276 are 292"? No. [was: Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?]]]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:03:59 -0500

Peter T. Daniels wrote, in part:
> Bob Cunningham wrote, in part:

>....... 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.

Why? We have no need to do that.

Maria Conlon (Smiling Republican)