Richard Aynesworthy writes (repeatedly):
I wrote the following before I reached the same question in another note:
[Do you mean "human"? I have noticed that you are consistant in this spelling. Is there some signifigance that I have failed to grasp? If so, please enlighten. If not, why do you not spell it in English? It is not a really big deal. I simply find it rather distracting.]
Now that I've read your response, I would just like to let you know mine. As a female, I find this sort of bastardization of the language exceedingly reactionary. English is a fairly young language. As such, it is already evolving at a higher than average rate. Verbal communication is fraught with sufficient pitfalls. I personally would prefer it if we could all attempt to communicate in the commonly acceptted (e.g., dictionary) terminology. Of course, I fully understand that this is merely my opinion and you have an equal right to your own.
You also wrote:
>Lucky for us that humyns have means of ordering information other than the
>(emergent properties of the spiritual/biological complex)
What is your basis for this concept? More to the point, what is this concept?