Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:7235 unix-pc.general:3528
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!pacbell!att!chinet!ignatz
From: ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: Wanted
Summary: Now, now--it's certainly NOT a sexist remark!
Keywords: sexism, complaint
Message-ID: <9211@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 8 Aug 89 19:18:59 GMT
References: <602@mbph.UUCP> <804@bagend.UUCP> <1292@banzai.UUCP> <827@bagend.UUCP> <1590@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat)
Followup-To: comp.sys.att
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 20

In article <1590@mtunb.ATT.COM> jcm@mtunb.UUCP (John McMillan) writes:
>In article <827@bagend.UUCP> jan@bagend.UUCP (Jan Isley) writes:
>:
>>This all reminds me of the signature line in some mail I got last week
>>from someone who worked at AT&T and could not get them to work on *her*
>>7300...  AT&T, the communications company, except internally of course.
>
>As we receive AT&T INTERNAL SERVICE on our many-many 3B1's on an ongoing
>and prompt basis, the above comment should be reconsidered.  (For its
>sexist highlighting, alone!  MANY of our staff and 3B1 users are female.)

If you'll read it, you'll find that the emphasis is not to make the point that
it was a 'her', but that it was emphasizing that she was an AT&T employee and
couldn't even get service.  Whether or not this was a correct assertion,
only the original AT&T employee who posted can affirm or deny; but this is
NOT a sexist highlight.

		Dave Ihnat
		ignatz@homebru.chi.il.us (preferred return address)
		ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us