Re: Joining FoRK?

sillyhead (
Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:09:09 -0500 (CDT)

Oh just shutup. (: I guess I should have sprinkled my email with a bunch
of smileys so you'd've known that I was just being facetious. Some folks
pick up my silly intent when they read my nick (sillyhead), but since I
can sometimes be serious about some things, I should clarify when I'm not.
Anyhow, my invitation for thoughts or debates was not an invitation to
argue about the word 'hir.' It was an attempt to start a discussion about
the categorizatin of literature. But if you want to argue about a word
(or non-word...btw, is non-word a word?), feel free. I don't have the

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Kieron Lawson wrote:

> Wednesday, August 04, 1999, 7:09:35 PM, you wrote:
> > Oh, objecting to my 'hir,' eh? Fine, I don't give a shit. It's my choice
> > to use this pronoun the way I wish. I don't do it in things I publish, or
> > in things I edit for other people to publish, so don't be dissin me for my
> > diction. I use the pronoun 'hir' not cuz it was intro'd to me by the love
> > of my life (as a matter of fact, I rejected it for that every reason) but
> > because I encountered it in ann Atwood novel. -Woman at the Edge of Time-
> > was good stuff for me. I recommend it to whoever. I've heard it
> > categorized as something 'feminist' and I'd like to see if any of you
> > who've read it would like to challenge that categoriztion I sure would.
> > It's simplifying to say something is a femenist work these days unless
> > that is -all- that it is. Any thoughts or debates about this?
> Yeah, it's not a f*ckin pronoun. It's not even a word.
> Neologisms are useful, but only when they add value to the language.
> To add another term that simply applies yet-another-form-of-sexism to
> an already obstuse language is collectively pointless, pretentious, and
> a zero-sum-game.
> Get off the horse.
> You ask us *not* to diss your diction, but then you go on to justify your
> usage?
> Weak grounds, methinks.