Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 30 Oct 1996 15:21:25 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|