Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!kad
From: kad@ttrdc.UUCP (Keith Drescher)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.misc
Subject: Re: d*mn, sh*t, f*ck, un*x: Patterns You May Not Have Considered
Message-ID: <268@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:27:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.268
Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:27:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 14:29:53 EDT
References: <1753@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: kad@ttrdc.UUCP (Keith Drescher)
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp.,  Skokie, Ill.
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.nlang:3370 net.misc:8224
Summary: 

In article <1753@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes:
>Why do people use 'sh*t', 'f*ck', 'd*mn', and 'un*x' when they
>know darn (damn?) well WE know what they're saying, and THEY know
>what they're saying, but they won't come out and say it!
>
>........... by your reading this you are now more alert to the
>dangers of the ambiguous '*' and will no longer use it in
>contexts where the pattern might be confused for something else
>(except for 'd*mn', which is apparently unique).
>-- 
>Gordon A. Moffett               ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam

Maybe we could just use f?ck, d?mn, un?x, that solved the
ambiguity.  Sh?t still presents a problem though ......

Sorry, just had to add my 1/2 cents worth.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
					       ____________    
                                       _      (___________/ 
                                  ====<_>====   //
Keith Drescher (kad@ttrdc)                \_\__//____  
                                         >__________/
PATH: ...!ihnp4!ttrdc!kad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimer:
     The views presented here are not those of my employer, my family,
or myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------