Here! Here! Mr. Burchard

        Too often people of any gender are so anxious to be "victims"  they
ignore the folkways of our society.  Common courtesy seems to be a casualty
as well.  I hope their personal "Ax Grinding" agendas are not reflected in
their institutions' presentations.

Wayne Hart, Director
Museum of Valor
Spotsylvania, Virginia
[log in to unmask]


>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
>
>