On 15-1-2014 9:39, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2014 5:48 AM, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, they do allow
>>> women in
>>
>> Silly me...I thought it was about being able to walk into a room full of
>> people and have a conversation with some of them, without having to stop
>> and explain what I just said every couple of sentences.  Or, just
>> possibly, without having to face the sullen, cowlike stares of people
>> who assume that women cannot possibly be very bright.
>>
> Hi Sherry, your annual visit? Good to see you.
>
> I don't think Patrick meant that the way you are taking it. I read it
> as, because they do let (and the word "let" is a signifier) women in.
> You can't criticise them for not letting women in. If you see what I mean?
>
> Hmm! Thinks before posting.
>
> That last sentence is more about my inability to express than your
> ability [as a woman {OMG (in these hallowed halls, what ever next?)} ;-)
> ] to understand.

Stephen, please, I know we don't have many women visitors here, but that 
is no reason to start to babble incoherently when one turns up.

[looking aside] Oh hi Sherry, good to see you again. I am assuming that 
my calendar starting to bleep your name today is just a coincidence that 
we won't have to look into further.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message