Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.35!Fred.Myers
From: Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org (Fred Myers)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Kicking a Dead Horse?
Message-ID: <10324@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 90 05:09:22 GMT
Sender: news@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:360/1.35 - Augusta Forum, North Augusta SC
Lines: 29
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 6893

In a message to Fred Myers <10 Feb 90 21:22:00> Anthony Casey wrote:

 >>     Ron, just one question comes to mind.  Do you find the term "Special
 >>Olympics" offensive?  If so, what would you suggest as an alternative?

 AC> (I know this question wasn't addressed
 AC> at me, but that's never stopped me
 AC> before...) Why do you say, "offensive"?
 AC> At the most, I could see the name as
 AC> being nothing more than twee. As an alternative, I would suggest: "The
 AC> Disabled People's Games", or variations.

What prompted the question was the mention of "special" as being
inappropriate when used in reference to the disabled according to
the article that Ron quoted (if my memory serves me correctly.)

For me personally, "Special Olympics" has a *good* connotation.  I
also liked Vixen's comment. (See previous message.)

     Anyone else out there feel strongly about this?

                         Fred
 

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.35!Fred.Myers
Internet: Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org