On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Caroyln Breedlove wrote:


> Hank Burchard wrote:


>      I think that using "Gentlemen" as a salutation is harmless, and
> suggest that anyone who gets really uptight about it should look inward
> rather than outward for the source of distress.
>
>
> Well, Hank, of course you think it harmless--but, then, you ARE male
> (presumably); Larisa Overmier is not.  Nor am I, and I cannot see the
> appropriateness of my being addressed as "Gentleman."  It seems awfully
> late in the epoch to be STILL explaining such basic concepts.

     You think *you* got troubles? I'm still trying to explain to the
gentlewomen who are jumping up and down on me that such basic concepts as
courtesy and effective communication require that a person read to the end
of a posting before replying to it, and also not quote it out of context.

     I suggest that you don't get mail addressed as "Gentle*man*," it
comes addressed to "Gentle*men*," saluting unknown persons collectively.
It's a holdover habit from the days when mostly only men did business, and
is generally used only when the writer has no idea who'll be opening the
letter.

    I said I think it's harmless because it's not directed at anybody in
particular, and I stand by that; surely there are more significant things
for people to worry about. But I ALSO SAID that I use "GENTLEPERSONS" in a
blind salutation, so as to avoid giving offense, and I would appreciate it
if you "gentlewomen" would stop offending me by twisting my words.

     Hank Burchard * <[log in to unmask]> * Washington DC | USA