Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!290!5!Dan.Payne
From: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org (Dan Payne)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Kicking a Dead Horse?
Message-ID: <10348@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 90 21:38:06 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:290/5 - USER SURLY, Avon Lake IA
Lines: 29
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 6915

 
 RR>I've often wondered at the amount of net bandwidth, time and 
 RR>energy 
 RR>that goes into debates over whether someone with a physical or 
 RR>other 
 RR>problem ought to be referred to as "handicapped", "disabled", 
 RR>"disABLED", or "dIsBlEd". None of these terms (nor most of the 
 RR>others 
 RR>commonly used under similar circumstances) is in any way pejorative. 
 RR>They are essentially a neutral way (and no worse than any of 
 RR>alternatives I've seen proposed by some in the dIsAbLeD community) 
 RR>to 
 RR>refer to the fact that someone has a physical (or perhaps educational 
 RR>or emotional) problem. 
 
I tend to lean more towards using the term "Unique"...because no matter what
the state your body happens to be in....you are..this comes out more though
it seems in individuals that have "disabilities".... 
 
later 
 
dan 
 

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!290!5!Dan.Payne
Internet: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org