Re: A Modest Proposal

Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
From: "Parks, Beverly" <ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:53:57 -0700

Just strike the offending words altogether. We've been calling documents
"docs" forever, anyway. Documentation would just become docutation.

Women would become wo and men would just cease to exist. :-)

Bev
(Eric must be on vacation)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Browne [SMTP:sbrowne -at- UNICOMP -dot- NET]
>
> Arlen P Walker wrote:
> > >excuse me, docuPERSONtation?
> >
> > I'm sorry, but we here at the Linguistic Prohibition Of Literal
> Inscriptions
> > Causing Exclusion (AKA the Linguistic POLICE) must protest the
> gender-specific
> > term referenced above. It contains the word "SON" which improperly
> specifices
> > a male offspring. The correct term is "child." Therefore we insist this
> be
> > rewritten as: docuperchildtation.
>
> I take great offence at what the Linguistic POLICE have just suggested.
> "Child"
> is *NOT* the correct term for "SON". As the 30 year old son of my mother,
> I am
> highly offended that you would consider me a child!
>
> Perhaps docuperdecendanttation? docuperoffspringtation?
>
>


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: Manmonth or Peoplemonth?
Next by Author: Re: User friendly term for Metadata
Previous by Thread: Re: A Modest Proposal
Next by Thread: Re: A Modest Proposal


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


Sponsored Ads