t; From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:o...@ocosa.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 28 September, 2012 05:33
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: RE: guys != gender neutral
>>
>> Maybe the OP for "really nasty attacks" in hindsight wishes "NANOGers" was
>> us
Ugly bags of mostly water?
---
() ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
> -Original Message-
> From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:o...@ocosa.com]
> Sent: Friday, 28 September, 2012 05:33
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: guys != gender ne
On 9/28/12, joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote:
> Intention is everything, words are only part of it. If you can't determine
> intention and you get upset then it is you that has the problem. Ask or let
> it go and assume the best intentions. The world be a lot better off if we
> all did this.
Exac
iginal Message-
>From: Landon Stewart [mailto:lstew...@superb.net]
>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:56 PM
>To: Owen DeLong
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
>
>On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> When did "p
Original Message -
> From: "Simon Perreault"
> > *Words* (and only words) have gender.
>
> There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER
> vCard property:
And kudos to Simon for bring it back to a semblence of on-topic-ness. Glad
to see that the authors of 6350
On 09/28/2012 09:43 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-09-28 12:15, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old
fashioned nowadays.
Mammals have sex.
*Words* (and only words) have gender.
There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, abo
Le 2012-09-28 12:15, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old
fashioned nowadays.
Mammals have sex.
*Words* (and only words) have gender.
There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER
vCard property:
6.2.7. GENDER
Note: this will be my one and only contribution to this thread.
While this thread has generated some very interesting and
thought-provoking discussions, I still think it strays pretty far from
being on-topic for NANOG. That being the case, let's all get back to
operating our respective networ
- Original Message -
> From: "Otis L. Surratt, Jr."
> Having "all walks of life" essentially all around, it really makes one
> careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with
> everything we have going on, but no one is perfect.
>
> The bottomline is, no one can reall
- Original Message -
> From: "Eric Parsonage"
> The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old
> fashioned nowadays.
Mammals have sex.
*Words* (and only words) have gender.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@bayl
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:43:21 -0400, Miles Fidelman said:
Given that this thread started out as a query re. a "really nasty
attack," and resulted in:
5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on "guys")
>20 responses re. "guys" (I stopped counting)
It occurs
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:18:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> "Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys",
> >
> >
> >
> > folk is the plural
> >
> > and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the
> > other day,
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:43:21 -0400, Miles Fidelman said:
> Given that this thread started out as a query re. a "really nasty
> attack," and resulted in:
> 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on "guys")
> >20 responses re. "guys" (I stopped counting)
> It occurs to me that maybe "morons
On 9/28/2012 9:18 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
As a form of address. "Hey, people" is ... well, nearly abrasive.
(Envision a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.)
Sure, in that limited context. In such a circumstance, I believe the phrase
"la
On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> "Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys",
>
>
>
> folk is the plural
>
> and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the
> other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging
>
> randy
According to my Dict
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> > As a form of address. "Hey, people" is ... well, nearly abrasive.
> > (Envision a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.)
> >
>
> Sure, in that limited context. In such a circumstance, I believe the phrase
> "ladies and gentlem[ae]n" is
> From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:o...@ocosa.com]
> As Owen mentioned saying "human" seems okay and true but then again,
> because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking
> process, "Oh I'm a HUMAN, well I that is true" then your
> temperature gets back to normal) :)
Are we really still talking about this?
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
> > Police-clown. Yep!
>
> Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for
> policepersons is "pleb"...
>
> http://duckduckgo.com/?q=pol
On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
> Police-clown. Yep!
Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for
policepersons is "pleb"...
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=police+pleb
Aled
Given that this thread started out as a query re. a "really nasty
attack," and resulted in:
5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on "guys")
>20 responses re. "guys" (I stopped counting)
It occurs to me that maybe "morons" or "idiots" might be an appropriate
gender-neutral framing.
-
> > Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
> > used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to
> > be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying
> > the other gender doesn't matter. *
>
> The Oxford English dic
Maybe the OP for "really nasty attacks" in hindsight wishes "NANOGers" was used
instead to address the list. :)
Having "all walks of life" essentially all around, it really makes one careful
to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have
going on, but no one is p
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned
nowadays.
On 28/09/2012, at 6:30 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Scott Howard writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>
>>> Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
>>>
> "Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys",
folk is the plural
and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the
other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging
randy
> Given the lack of truly neutral terms in english, I have
> taken to alternative my pronouns interchangably when I write.
"Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys", but I do understand why
it can come across as exclusionary, and I try to force myself into the habit of
"folks". It
Scott Howard writes:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>> Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
>> used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to
>> be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out i
I think people should get the sand out of their crack (notice that both
genders have a crack, wouldn't want to offend anyone) and quit looking
for the bogey-man behind every door. If you constantly look for things
to offend, you'll be constantly offended.
On 9/27/2012 7:36 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:36 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"!
*shrug* Sorry you are offended. Some are, most of my friends use those terms
interchangeably. (I'm referring to friends of the female gender) Apparently
some on the east coast get offended by this,
It's not suitable to refer to a single person of either gender.
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for
> {guys,gals}?
>
> Owen
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>> O
On 27 September 2012 16:08, Scott Howard wrote:
> The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you.
>
>
> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=us&q=guys
> (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee?
> *
>
> As other many words in the Engl
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
> used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to
> be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying
> the other gender d
: Landon Stewart [mailto:lstew...@superb.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:56 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
> When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute
>
EEK-Wallet-EE!
- Original Message
> From: Jethro R Binks
> To: "nanog@nanog.org"
> Sent: Thu, September 27, 2012 2:23:28 PM
> Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Landon Stewart wrote:
>
> > On 27 September 2012 11:34,
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Landon Stewart wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for
> > {guys,gals}?
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'.
>
> What's up humans?
>
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
> When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for
> {guys,gals}?
>
> Owen
>
>
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'.
What's up humans?
Can I get you humans to drink?
This rarely offends anyone.
--
Lan
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:57:36PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work.
> Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and
> moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with.
>
> Andrew
I only wish you had use
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
>
> I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find
> appropriate words.
I find that "folks" is an excellent replacement that d
out network :(
>
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: JC Dill
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:36:03
> To:
> Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
>
> On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> >
On 9/27/2012 2:47 PM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
> Here is the south we simply use "y'all".
That's what I was thinking.
Also, btw, I disagree with that earlier comment about gender usage in
the Bible, as least in regards to the New Testament. The Greek language
of that time period is the most
e gender bias so we can all get back to talking about network
:(
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-Original Message-
From: JC Dill
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:36:03
To:
Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Or when act
Since we all know that on the Internet "the men are men, the women are men, and
the children are FBI agents", I think saying "guys" is OK.
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:39 PM
To: NANOG
Subject
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute
> for {guys,gals}?
As a form of address. "Hey, people" is ... well, nearly abrasive. (Envision
a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashw
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is
a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about
every single perceived slight they can come up with.
Andrew
On 9/27/2012 2:10 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
eless Network
-Original Message-
From: JC Dill
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:36:03
To:
Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote
> from something I posted in a private forum (my ow
Here is the south we simply use "y'all".
---
Brian Raaen
Network Architect
Zcorum
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>
>> Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from
>> something I posted in a private forum (my
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote
from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is
safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the
competition. The guys I
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for
{guys,gals}?
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Jim Mercer wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> Many. Althoug
On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Jim Mercer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral
>> manner.
>
> some people use it in a globally-neutral manner.
> "those guys over there" pointing at a r
48 matches
Mail list logo
