Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!GAFFA.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request From: Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: More boring stuff on language Message-ID: <1989Sep30.010630.3294@paris.ics.uci.edu> Date: 30 Sep 89 01:06:30 GMT Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS Lines: 17 Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu Really-From: David ShapiroIn article <8909282317.AA13411@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> Doug Alan writes: > >I have never said I have any objection to "!>oug"! I don't mind it >all. Anything that looks like a "D" for the first letter is fine, >including "D". ":>" does not look like a "D", and neither does "?>". >"|}" looks like a breast -- not a "D". Aha! We've come full circle! According to |>oug, "|}" looks like a breast. Another word for a breast, as any good scholar of Shakespearean English knows, is "dug". So, people, please limit yourselves to "Doug Alan", "|>oug Alan", "!>oug Alan", or simply "|} Alan". [N.B. "|}" does not look terribly mammary on my screen--I wish I were using the same font |>oug uses :-) ]