On Aug 17, 8:04�pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 17, 5:40�pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 17, 4:06�pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 17, 10:03�am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > I'm no English native, but I already heard women/men referring to a > > > > group as "guys", no matter that group gender configuration. It's even > > > > used for group composed exclusively of women. Moreover it looks like a > > > > *very* friendly form, so there is really nothing to worry about it. > > > > I like how being very friendly means calling people after a guy who > > > tried to blow up the English Parliament. > > > So? > > I also like how making an amusing pointless observation
Pointless, yes, but what was amusing abot the observation? > gets people all huffy. That wasn't huffy. You want to see huffy, make a wisecrack comparing mothballs to Zyklon B, you'll REALLY get a load of huffy replies. > > (BTW, lest anyone is not aware, that is the origin of the word "guy", It most certainly is not. Maybe the origin of that word's useage as a genric reference to a male, but you didn't say that. > this was not some random association.) Penny for the guy? > > Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list