Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Gender-specific honorifics
Message-ID: <31600113@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Feb-85 00:08:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.31600113
Posted: Sat Feb 16 00:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 06:04:42 EST
References: <1730@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #R:sdcrdcf:-173000:uiucdcs:31600113:000:565
Nf-From: uiucdcs!mcewan    Feb  8 23:08:00 1985


> 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."