Dear Wallace Wright:
On Jan 7, 1:51=A0pm, Wallace Wright <wwri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
=2E..
> That's nice, but you failed to address the point. =A0Clearly
> you know how to read, and you probably know what you're
> doing so I suppose we must conclude that you are
> suddenly not longer interested in this topic.
=2E..
> "La la la; I can't hear you!"
=2E..
> More platitudes and evasion.
=2E..
> At least you are presenting a prime example of the
> passive-aggressive argumentation style that supports
> such mass-culture mores as are under discussion. =A0I
> presume your response would be different if you had a
> defensible position on the matter.
=2E..
> You seem to be unable to discuss the issue reasonably.
=2E..
> Tra-la-la-la-la.
=2E..
> Well, it looks as though you've shown your colors.
=2E..
> Bite me.
=2E..
> So much for intelligent discussion of gender bias and
> its historical antecedents.
=2E..
As to your question about which language treats unmodified things as
male, it is Indian, as spoken in India.
David A. Smith
|
