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."