Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00200)

Virginia:
>When, Kim, did Alan put the "universal" back in?  The first vote on
>the objects of TI that I have record of is dated April 13, 1996.
>In that message the first object was worded:  To form a nucleus
>within the universal human family,....(etc.).

>Are you referring to an earlier version of these objects or wording
>in other places, such as a web site?

Actually I am not clear on this (help Alan!). Somewhere I saw a version
recently without the word "universal" and thought: "Now the sentence and
1st object has become meaningless".

>I'm glad to hear you think "Brother-" is hopeless

   Oh thank god you read it, I have descriped it as "hopeless", "silly",
"unhappy" and "unlucky" without making much impression. But my point is
that the idea which the term was *intended* to cover has some meanings not
yet translated.
   But I agree perfectly with your objections. I speak a tongue where fx.
"human" is always neutral like in german "mensch" but without gender of any
kind (and never as man). I normally treat defects in english with a
complete lack of interest. Or - when I see the terms "man", "mankind" I
think: Interesting, they have retained much of the original sense of
"manu", the thinker. It would have been much simpler to always put a
"sister" alongside the "brother" from the beginning.

 In friendship,

Kim