On Sat 22 Jan 2005 02:39:24p, Damsel called across the abyss...

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:44:59 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Damsel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>I disapprove of euphemism. People used to be crippled, then
>>>>handicapped, then (god forbid) differently-abled.
>>>
>>> People with disabilities. They/we are, first and foremost, people.
>>
>>Yes, but if you are crippled, you are crippled. A fancy name does not
>>change the facts. Slang names (such as the "gimp" referred to) are
>>hurtful, but our society would rather change names than deal with the
>>fact. Cripple has been in the dictionary for a few centuries.
>
> There are many long-standing terms in the dictionary. Doesn't make them
> right. There are a lot of disabling conditions, not all of them
> visible, and not all of them crippling, in the usual sense of the word.
>
>> What is more demeaning than the "human resources" department instead of
>> the personnel department? Are you merely a resource or are you a
>> person?
>
> My last job was as a Human Resource Officer for a state agency.
> Rehabilitation Services. I've been trained to be politically
> correct (a person isn't in a wheelchair - they are a person who uses a
> wheelchair), and political correctness is generally a way to offer
> dignity to someone.
>
>>If you looked at me you'd say I'm bald. It does not alter the fact if
>>you called me a "person of hair growth impairment" instead.
>
> Nah, I'd just say you're Ed. Hair, or lack of it, is only relevant when
> filing a police report. Same with race, hair color, weight, etc.
> People are people. Some are good, some are bad, and some are a little
> of each. I'm more inclined to identify someone according to their
> personality traits and attitudes than what's on the outside.
>
> Carol (vertically challenged) LOL!

You're too tall? <G>

Wayne