> > > >>>As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the > > > >>>most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most > > > >>>contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is > > > >>>likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I > > > >>>don't know) as well as, indirectly or not, some men. > > (And quite stunningly failing to realise that objecting to this > package in this manner is equally offensive in the other direction, > and probably more so.
Please humour me and spell it out for me in small words. I am presumably missing something stunningly obvious. b.
