barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold) (01/31/85)
I got one netter's intesting suggestin that the all purpose honorific should be Mx. (I think it's nice to use the algebraic "x" for unknown. Very elegant.) Then my husband Barry suggested it would be more in keeping with the spirit of UNIX to write it as M*. (And besides that way there's less chance of fallout from missile makers.) --Lee Gold
kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/08/85)
/* Written 10:45 pm Jan 30, 1985 by barryg@sdcrdcf in uiucdcs:net.women */ /* ---------- "Re: Gender-specific honorifics" ---------- */ I got one netter's intesting suggestin that the all purpose honorific should be Mx. (I think it's nice to use the algebraic "x" for unknown. Very elegant.) Then my husband Barry suggested it would be more in keeping with the spirit of UNIX to write it as M*. (And besides that way there's less chance of fallout from missile makers.) --Lee Gold /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.women */ I'm afraid, neither one of these would really be non-sexist. "Mx" would invariably evolve to the point where it would be pronounced "missile", and would thereby sound too much like the feminine "miss". Similarly, M* would be pronounced "masterisk", with obviously masculine implications. Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) [:-), if you hadn't figured that out] "The computer is your friend."
mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/16/85)
> I got one netter's intesting suggestin that the all purpose honorific should > be Mx. (I think it's nice to use the algebraic "x" for unknown. Very > elegant.) > > Then my husband Barry suggested it would be more in keeping with the spirit > of UNIX to write it as M*. > > (And besides that way there's less chance of fallout from missile makers.) No,no,no - the proper UNIX form would be "M?". Has a nice, ambiguous look to it, doesn't it? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Uh oh. Looks like we got a 666 down there - diety on a rampage."