On Aug 17, 8:49 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote: > 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?
The irony that in being friendly that you're calling someone a terrorist. I guess I shouldn't have expected you to get it. > > 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. My dictionary disagrees with you. > 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? Probably that phrase was part of the word's gradual common adoption. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
