Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!olivea!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!137!219.0!Gene.Zeak From: Gene.Zeak@p0.f219.n137.z1.fidonet.org (Gene Zeak) Newsgroups: misc.handicap Subject: Re: Terminology, cont. Message-ID: <13638@bunker.UUCP> Date: 21 Aug 90 14:42:41 GMT Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP Reply-To: Gene.Zeak@p0.f219.n137.z1.fidonet.org Distribution: misc Organization: FidoNet node 1:137/219.0 - Crystal Visions 2, Bradenton FL Lines: 43 Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP Index Number: 9931 AB> What else can you do? If you see or hear reporters use AB> incorrect terminology (even to save space in a headline or time AB> on the air), call them or send them this page so they can be AB> aware of the appropriate words to use. Tell them it matters to AB> you and to people with disabilities. AB> AB> Any comments anybody? AB> AB> Take it easy....but take it! AB> AB> Adrienne AB> Hi Adrienne... I agree with much of that, in general. Thanks for sharing it. My concern (presently and long lasting) is, and has been, that we as a group (those that "have a disability") are far too often far too sensitive to semantics. Quite often I have seen a really well meaning person put down for using a particular chioce of words. In my opinion the intention of the heart is a lot more important than the choice of words. With that in mind let me say that I *DO* think it important to be as specifically correct as possible, but the speaker (writer) needs to be corrected in light of their intent, not just their choice of words. I've seen both sides...the wimpy response of, "Oh well, let them be...they mean well." and, "Get 'em, they used to wrong words!" To me the appropriate response lies somewhere in the middle, and that is what I'm promoting. You may think this message is directed at you...it isn't. It's just a cry in the wilderness for the application of reason... Later, Gene... -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!137!219.0!Gene.Zeak Internet: Gene.Zeak@p0.f219.n137.z1.fidonet.org