TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Male/Female thread From:John Posada <jposada -at- NOTES -dot- CC -dot- BELLCORE -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 18 Nov 1996 23:54:01 -0500
That's my point. If we are to try to anticipate every offensive meaning
possible to phrases that have become accepted and proper in their specialized
area, then 1) we are going to attach (and remind people of) offensive meanings
when none are meant, and 2) you going to miss one.
This is one way of perpetuating offensive meanings by not letting the offensive
meaning die and therefore retain only the meaning it is meant to imply.
I think this PC stuff can get way too carried away.
Excerpts from tech: 18-Nov-96 Re: Male/Female thread by John
Posada -at- NOTES -dot- CC -dot- BEL
> There are any number of things out there that should offend someone.
> on something that is not meant to be offensive, isn't offensive, and is meant
> to be enjoyed between consenting adults. I don't know about you, but when I
> write about technology involving slave and master relationships, I don't
> picture any sexual significance. Isn't there enough out there without
> for situations?
Er, I don't know about *you*, but that's not the connotation I was
getting out of that. I was thinking more of the historical significance
of slavery, etc.
(who isn't picturing sexual significance? ;)