From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: "James Giles" Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: <6c2kcv$cjm@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324891065 References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bp6rh$sim$4@peachy.apana.org.au> <6bpoea$rd1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> <6bsddk$3cp$1@news.nyu.edu> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com> <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com> <34E25602.4F93EF49@for-president.com> <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6bvdv1$bku@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6c09ub$78@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael Rubenstein wrote in message <34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... ... >Obviously you are very bothered by this. So bothered that you didn't >notice that the sentence that started this may be considered to fall >into that category. It was not talking about a specific individual. Evidently you didn't read my articles. I didn't address the original example at all. And no, the original example doesn't bother me. In fact, I use that kind of phrase all the time ("if everyone would raise their glasses in a toast"). What does bother me is people using the plural when it actually makes their statement *false*. Such as the sample I wrote about the pilot's responsibilities. Another thing that bothers me is usage which scrambles the meaning so badly that it can't be followed clearly: "the man lost their wife to cancer." Whose wife? Was the man (who is the subsect of the sentence) one of those married to her? Is this a story about cancer or bigamy? (This example was heard on CNN.) Finally, what bothers me is to be told that my occasional use of the traditional generic is sexist. It isn't. Indeed, it is the reader who makes such an accusation that is being impolite. The reader who interprets the use of the traditional generic as sexist is the one making the decision to exclude women from the domain of those the writing is about. This is true regardless of the intent of the writer. -- J. Giles