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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------