Except it does not, in fact, mean that.  It means whatever is
convenient--and politically that has been a disaster in addition to a
linguistic falsehood.  That it "resonates" does not affect its
linguistic and historical status.  This seems oddly out of character
since you make a point of knowing facts and history.

>>> [log in to unmask] 04/09/06 9:57 AM >>>
Brother Ken, Brother CR, make room for me in your pew.
"Man" still resonates for me, in some instances, as humankind. 


Ken Armstrong wrote:

> --On Saturday, April 08, 2006 11:42 PM -0500 Carrol Cox 
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Movement afoot. Have you been sleeping for 40 years. "Man" as generic
>> simply vulgar and illiterate.
>  I heard you the first time. I am asking you why you think it is in 
> wide use. Apparently you are saying it is only among the vulgar and 
> illiterate, who do, of course, outnumber the population of whatever 
> category you are placing yourself in. I am saying you are, to put it 
> plainly, underestimating its use and its users.
> Ken A.