Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: new disabbreviation for SO
Message-ID: <90@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 21:02:38 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.90
Posted: Sun Feb 17 21:02:38 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 07:43:33 EST
References: <1613@ittvax.UUCP> <pucc-h.1729>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 23
Xref: linus net.singles:4891 net.social:443
Summary: 

In article <pucc-h.1729> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes:
>It has been remarked in other articles (and also off the net) that people have
>numerous "significant others" in their lives at the same time, and quite
>possibly none of these is an SO in the sense that term is usually used.
>Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have SO stand for "Special One".
>

That would be slightly better.  However, many individuals are special
to us in various ways at various times in our lives.
I prefer scrapping "SO" completely.  I am sick of acronyms.
I already encounter too much of this kind of stupid pomposity
in my work.

What is wrong with using plain English?  Instead of some crytic,
psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover."
The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic,
without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually
consummated.

		Frank Silbermann
		University of North Carolina

STAMP OUT AND ERADICATE SUPERFLUOUS REDUNDANCIES