I didn't say I understand English better than a native speaker, and I do not believe that I ever shall; I merely indicated that knowing different languages well helps one see similarities and differences, which I think is a fair point. Some of the grammatical differences are pretty interesting and can present unexpected difficulties in areas like book translation, where one would think that the vocabulary differences are much more important. For example, the Greek equivalent of "he washes" does not specify gender, while "someone" does, and for generic usage we use the masculine form. (I am sure this can cause problems when translating mystery novels.) Nobody seems to object; it's just the way things are. We need a default, and that's the one we use.
Perhaps trying to apply such logic on the English language is a fallacy, but I do know that the matter of gender-neutral language, at least in certain areas, is controversial and in no way decided one way or another. Languages evolve, but they do so slowly, and there is resistance at every stage, be it due to familiarity with the old forms or for other reasons. I personally seem to be more resistant to change than the average for my age (and I am referring to linguistic change here, because I harbour no racist or sexist feelings, partly due to the curious circumstances of my upbringing), but in this particular case I am also expressing a dislike for the sanitisation of history.
To repeat my main view, I consider it perfectly reasonable, and probably necessary, to adapt common words to their modern needs, and to consider both sexes when creating new ones. But we are using historical terms here, and I do not like changing these. I am saddened to see Random leave—after all, he is one of our oldest members, and we've had lots of good moments here—and I understand that this matter may be close to his heart. But I do not care for insinuations about our moral values from a man who ought to know better. It's an artistic choice, not a dismissal of one-half of human population, which I'll agree with anyone who asks that is contemptible. And, in any case, if more women wanted to comment on the names, they could have done so.
On the matter of the deletion, I do not believe that any account with posts ought to be deleted, due to the gaps that would cause in discussions. We say we'll delete bad-quality posts in the new forum, but that should take place before they are replied to, or the replies ought to be deleted as well. An account can certainly be de-activated and indeed ought to be, to prevent any second-rate hacker from logging in and wreaking havoc, but I object to puncturing holes in old threads. Granted, even if the account is deleted, there are only two posts to be removed in this case, but I do hope that we can avoid that, as well as the precedent it would set. After all, the custom title would probably say something like "Former member" and thus indicate no connection with the ranking system.
Acta est fabula plaudite
