🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <geoffmD6xnH6.DAD@netcom.com> geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) writes:
>So what's your point?  *My* point is that with the availability of
>the terms "blind" and "partially blind," all possibilities are nicely
>covered; there's no reason to employ contrived, mealy-mouthed terms
>like "visually impaired."

It goes beyond that.  Blind people aren't even "visually impaired."
Their acuity is impaired.  "Visually impaired" implies someone is
ugly.  I've known my fair share of visually impaired people who could
see just fine.  If you're going to use contrived, mealy-mouthed terms,
how about you use one that's etymologically correct.  "Acuity impaired"
is it.  "Visually impaired" ain't.

"I learned Braille 'cuz I'm ugly."

Now, is there some mental cripple who wants to hobble their brain out
on crutches to defend "non-sighted" as an alternative?

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
-- 
"My brother's favorite nursing case was the bozo who tried the shotgun
in the mouth trick. He blew his face off up to the eyebrows and
survived with no face and blind. The blindness wasn't the hassle you'd
expect, since at least he didn't have to shave anymore." -- Nadja Adolf