Re: FU word implication

Subject: Re: FU word implication
From: "Tim Altom" <taltom -at- simplywritten -dot- com>
To: "Michele Davis" <michele -at- krautgrrl -dot- com>, "TechDoc List" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:11:37 -0500

I may have missed something, but why is this a legal issue?

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar(TM) System
"Better communication is a service to mankind."
Check our Web site for the upcoming Clustar class info

----- Original Message -----
From: Michele Davis <michele -at- krautgrrl -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:40 PM
Subject: FU word implication

> I've gotten two sides:
> 1) Someone who stays at home, works PT or FT at a job non-related to
> household duties, and is available for the children.
> 2) Someone who stays at home and only does house-related duties and
> takes care of the children.
> This is my dilemma, to me the implication of "stay-at-home mom" is that
> one doesn't work FT but is home to take care of the child(ren).
> I am getting into a scrap with my attorney over this wording, because he
> feels that stay-at-home mom implies #1, whereas I think it implies #2. I
> work mostly from home, but do not consider myself a stay-at-home mom,
> although from 2:00 PM on every day I am interrupted with homework
> questions, and requests for grilled cheese sammies.
> --
> Michele
> need a communication specialist? try here:

Previous by Author: Re: Please send alcoholic beverages. . . quickly
Next by Author: Re: E-mail - "published" or not?
Previous by Thread: Re: FU word implication
Next by Thread: Re: FU word implication

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads