cripple
Noun
offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*

1. a person who is lame or disabled
2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple

I believe this is the meaning to which Mr Sack referred and yes, used in
this way it is inexcusably offensive. No educated or cultured person would
ever use such.

The only people who would use this are low lifes. It is NOT in common usage
regardless of what Mr Sack would have you believe.

The following is in common usage and is not used in any offensive way.

Verb
[-pling, -pled]
1. to make a cripple of
2. to damage (something) [Old English crypel]
crippled adj
crippling adj

AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED, HOW
ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN, GIRL, BOY ETC!

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:

>
> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED, HOW
> ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN, GIRL, BOY ETC!

there is that.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>
>> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED,
>> HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN,
>> GIRL, BOY ETC!
>
> there is that.

Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. I don't define myself
by that. I never say, I am asthmatic and in your case, I wouldn't call
myself disabled. I would probably say I have a disability and in fact I do.

You are not your disability. You are Blake; funny, witty and clever. I got
very angry when the English were being accused of using such offensive
remarks. I think I made myself clear in my previous post!

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >
> > AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED, HOW
> > ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN, GIRL, BOY
ETC!
>
> there is that.


Poul Anderson in WORLD WITHOUT STARS postulated a planet in a system
whose star was distant from the galaxy. The rabbit-like sapients of that
planet saw a galaxy take on an eyelike shape in their night sky.

They dubbed that phenomenon "God."


--
Best
Greg

On Mar 23, 11:00*am, "Ophelia" > wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED,
> >> HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; *MAN, WOMAN,
> >> GIRL, BOY ETC!
>
> > there is that.
>
> Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. *I don't define myself
> by that. *I never say, I am asthmatic and in your case, I wouldn't call
> myself disabled. *I would probably say I have a disability and in fact I do.
>
> You are not your disability. *You are Blake; funny, witty and clever. *I got
> very angry when the English were being accused of using such offensive
> remarks. *I think I made myself clear in my previous post!

======================================
There exists a remedy called "People First Language". In essence, it
encourages folks to NOT LABEL others by their diffrences. I have
diabetes. I am not "a diabetic" anymore than my friend is "a cancer".
Also - avoid "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelcchair".
Instead, just say " uses a wheelchair". Identify the person NOT the
disability.

Lynn in Fargo
Partners in Policy Making
advocate for people with disabiities

Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:00 am, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>>> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED,
>>>> HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN,
>>>> GIRL, BOY ETC!
>>
>>> there is that.
>>
>> Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. I don't define
>> myself by that. I never say, I am asthmatic and in your case, I
>> wouldn't call myself disabled. I would probably say I have a
>> disability and in fact I do.
>>
>> You are not your disability. You are Blake; funny, witty and clever.
>> I got very angry when the English were being accused of using such
>> offensive remarks. I think I made myself clear in my previous post!
>
> ======================================
> There exists a remedy called "People First Language". In essence, it
> encourages folks to NOT LABEL others by their diffrences. I have
> diabetes. I am not "a diabetic" anymore than my friend is "a cancer".
> Also - avoid "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelcchair".
> Instead, just say " uses a wheelchair". Identify the person NOT the
> disability.

Quite so!

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 11:00 am, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>>> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED,
>>>>> HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN,
>>>>> GIRL, BOY ETC!
>>>
>>>> there is that.
>>>
>>> Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. I don't define
>>> myself by that. I never say, I am asthmatic and in your case, I
>>> wouldn't call myself disabled. I would probably say I have a
>>> disability and in fact I do.
>>>
>>> You are not your disability. You are Blake; funny, witty and clever.
>>> I got very angry when the English were being accused of using such
>>> offensive remarks. I think I made myself clear in my previous post!
>>
>> ======================================
>> There exists a remedy called "People First Language". In essence, it
>> encourages folks to NOT LABEL others by their diffrences. I have
>> diabetes. I am not "a diabetic" anymore than my friend is "a cancer".
>> Also - avoid "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelcchair".
>> Instead, just say " uses a wheelchair". Identify the person NOT the
>> disability.
>
> Quite so!

Also, Blake is hawt.

cybercat wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 11:00 am, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE
>>>>>> DESCRIBED, HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE;
>>>>>> MAN, WOMAN, GIRL, BOY ETC!
>>>>
>>>>> there is that.
>>>>
>>>> Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. I don't
>>>> define myself by that. I never say, I am asthmatic and in your
>>>> case, I wouldn't call myself disabled. I would probably say I have
>>>> a disability and in fact I do.
>>>>
>>>> You are not your disability. You are Blake; funny, witty and
>>>> clever. I got very angry when the English were being accused of
>>>> using such offensive remarks. I think I made myself clear in my
>>>> previous post!
>>>
>>> ======================================
>>> There exists a remedy called "People First Language". In essence,
>>> it encourages folks to NOT LABEL others by their diffrences. I have
>>> diabetes. I am not "a diabetic" anymore than my friend is "a
>>> cancer". Also - avoid "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a
>>> wheelcchair". Instead, just say " uses a wheelchair". Identify the
>>> person NOT the disability.
>>
>> Quite so!
>
> Also, Blake is hawt.

LOL what more can I say? )

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> cripple
> Noun
> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
>
> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple


I'm a cripple. Yes, I'm offensive.
I'm also an irritant.

--
Aloha Nui Loa,
TFM®

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 11:00 am, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>>> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED,
>>>>> HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN,
>>>>> GIRL, BOY ETC!
>>>
>>>> there is that.
>>>
>>> Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. I don't define
>>> myself by that. I never say, I am asthmatic and in your case, I
>>> wouldn't call myself disabled. I would probably say I have a
>>> disability and in fact I do.
>>>
>>> You are not your disability. You are Blake; funny, witty and clever.
>>> I got very angry when the English were being accused of using such
>>> offensive remarks. I think I made myself clear in my previous post!
>>
>> ======================================
>> There exists a remedy called "People First Language". In essence, it
>> encourages folks to NOT LABEL others by their diffrences. I have
>> diabetes. I am not "a diabetic" anymore than my friend is "a cancer".
>> Also - avoid "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelcchair".
>> Instead, just say " uses a wheelchair". Identify the person NOT the
>> disability.
>
> Quite so!
>

Call me by my Cherokee name, Drinks and cries a lot.

TFM®

Ophelia wrote:
> cripple
> Noun
> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
>
> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple
>
> I believe this is the meaning to which Mr Sack referred and yes, used in
> this way it is inexcusably offensive. No educated or cultured person would
> ever use such.
>
> The only people who would use this are low lifes. It is NOT in common usage
> regardless of what Mr Sack would have you believe.
>
> The following is in common usage and is not used in any offensive way.
>
> Verb
> [-pling, -pled]
> 1. to make a cripple of
> 2. to damage (something) [Old English crypel]
> crippled adj
> crippling adj
>
> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED, HOW
> ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN, GIRL, BOY ETC!


A rose by any other name......
Those are the words of our language. They are mean to describe, not to
judge.

Ophelia > wrote:

> cripple
> Noun
> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
>
> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple

The OED, full (printed) edition: "One who is disabled (either from
birth, or from accident or injury) from the use of his limbs; a lame
person." (No "offensive" designation).

I wonder how politically-correct "lame" is...

> I believe this is the meaning to which Mr Sack referred and yes, used in
> this way it is inexcusably offensive. No educated or cultured person would
> ever use such.

Only such illiterate, ill-bred and uncouth persons as Auberon Waugh or
Mary Killen, evidently.

> The only people who would use this are low lifes. It is NOT in common usage
> regardless of what Mr Sack would have you believe.

Damn all the bloody, useless evidence!

> The following is in common usage and is not used in any offensive way.
>
> Verb
> [-pling, -pled]
> 1. to make a cripple of
> 2. to damage (something) [Old English crypel]
> crippled adj
> crippling adj

Do you want me to quote another English dictionary published by the
Oxford University Press that says something very different, namely that
the term "crippled" is offensive? I can play advocatus diaboli if need
be.

ObFood: Cripple soup, from
<http://cuivi.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/cripple-soup/>

Victor

Cripple Soup

Adapted from care2's Grandma's Healing Soup recipe.

1/2 small bag baby carrots, sliced
white part of leek, halved and sliced
1 medium potato, peeled and diced
1 medium onion, diced
5 chicken thighs, skin removed
olive oil
seasoned salt
curly leaf parsley, roughly chopped

-Saute vegetables in olive oil for about 5 minutes, add about 8 cups of
water, bring to boil then simmer
-Season chicken thighs, pan fry in olive oil until slightly browned,
separate meat from bones, add both to soup, bring to
boil, simmer
-Add chopped parsley to soup, season to taste with salt and pepper
-Serve to cripple/invalid/convalescent in your acquaintance

Victor Sack wrote:
>al cripple
>
> The OED, full (printed) edition: "One who is disabled (either from
> birth, or from accident or injury) from the use of his limbs; a lame
> person." (No "offensive" designation).
>
> I wonder how politically-correct "lame" is...

MO it is only non PC to those who are lame brained.

"Victor Sack" wrote
> Ofailure fumfered:
>
>> cripple
>> Noun
>> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
>>
>> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
>> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple
>
> The OED, full (printed) edition: "One who is disabled (either from
> birth, or from accident or injury) from the use of his limbs; a lame
> person." (No "offensive" designation).
>
> I wonder how politically-correct "lame" is...
>
>> I believe this is the meaning to which Mr Sack referred and yes, used in
>> this way it is inexcusably offensive. No educated or cultured person
>> would
>> ever use such.
>
> Only such illiterate, ill-bred and uncouth persons as Auberon Waugh or
> Mary Killen, evidently.
>
>> The only people who would use this are low lifes. It is NOT in common
>> usage
>> regardless of what Mr Sack would have you believe.
>
> Damn all the bloody, useless evidence!
>
>> The following is in common usage and is not used in any offensive way.
>>
>> Verb
>> [-pling, -pled]
>> 1. to make a cripple of
>> 2. to damage (something) [Old English crypel]
>> crippled adj
>> crippling adj
>
> Do you want me to quote another English dictionary published by the
> Oxford University Press that says something very different, namely that
> the term "crippled" is offensive? I can play advocatus diaboli if need
> be.


Sometimes a cripple is a Stud!

http://daveosborne.com/dave/articles...indowframe.gif

In article >,
"brooklyn1" > wrote:

> Sometimes a cripple is a Stud!
>
> http://daveosborne.com/dave/articles...indowframe.gif

Just what can't Super Dave do?

leo

Victor Sack wrote:
> Do you want me to quote another English dictionary published by the
> Oxford University Press that says something very different, namely
> that the term "crippled" is offensive? I can play advocatus diaboli
> if need be.

I thought you had already done that when you quoted headlines from cheap
newspapers.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:29:41 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 11:00 am, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:18:08 -0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> AS FOR WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON WOULD WISH TO BE DESCRIBED,
>>>>>> HOW ABOUT USING WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR ANYONE ELSE; MAN, WOMAN,
>>>>>> GIRL, BOY ETC!
>>>>
>>>>> there is that.
>>>>
>>>> Well it might seem simplistic. I have chronic asthma. I don't define
>>>> myself by that. I never say, I am asthmatic and in your case, I
>>>> wouldn't call myself disabled. I would probably say I have a
>>>> disability and in fact I do.
>>>>
>>>> You are not your disability. You are Blake; funny, witty and clever.
>>>> I got very angry when the English were being accused of using such
>>>> offensive remarks. I think I made myself clear in my previous post!
>>>
>>> ======================================
>>> There exists a remedy called "People First Language". In essence, it
>>> encourages folks to NOT LABEL others by their diffrences. I have
>>> diabetes. I am not "a diabetic" anymore than my friend is "a cancer".
>>> Also - avoid "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelcchair".
>>> Instead, just say " uses a wheelchair". Identify the person NOT the
>>> disability.
>>
>> Quite so!
>
> Also, Blake is hawt.

thanks, toots. you can turn my wheels anytime.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:57:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> cripple
>> Noun
>> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
>>
>> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
>> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple
>>
>
> Note that the Collins Essential English Dictionary has the "offensive"
> notation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language does
> not. Random House says "sometimes offensive". So . . . . . it is a matter
> of personal use and opinion as to whether it is offensive or not. If you
> replace it with another word that has the same meaning, it is just as
> offensive.
>
> While cripple has fallen out of common usage, it was a very common term
> years ago and was not considered any more offensive that handicapped or
> disabled. Language evolves.

yes, yes it does. at one time 'pickaninnies' was fairly innocuous, but you
don't hear it much anymore. like it or not, your use of words help form
people's impressions of you. ignore that at your peril.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:57:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> cripple
>>> Noun
>>> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
>>>
>>> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
>>> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple
>>>
>>
>> Note that the Collins Essential English Dictionary has the
>> "offensive" notation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the
>> English Language does not. Random House says "sometimes offensive".
>> So . . . . . it is a matter of personal use and opinion as to
>> whether it is offensive or not. If you replace it with another
>> word that has the same meaning, it is just as offensive.
>>
>> While cripple has fallen out of common usage, it was a very common
>> term years ago and was not considered any more offensive that
>> handicapped or disabled. Language evolves.
>
> yes, yes it does. at one time 'pickaninnies' was fairly innocuous,
> but you don't hear it much anymore. like it or not, your use of
> words help form people's impressions of you. ignore that at your
> peril.

Methinks it could be too late for some...

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:57:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> cripple
> >> Noun
> >> offensive ..... please note *OFFENSIVE!*
> >>
> >> 1. a person who is lame or disabled
> >> 2. a person with a mental or social problem: an emotional cripple
> >>
> >
> > Note that the Collins Essential English Dictionary has the "offensive"
> > notation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language does
> > not. Random House says "sometimes offensive". So . . . . . it is a
matter
> > of personal use and opinion as to whether it is offensive or not. If
you
> > replace it with another word that has the same meaning, it is just as
> > offensive.
> >
> > While cripple has fallen out of common usage, it was a very common term
> > years ago and was not considered any more offensive that handicapped or
> > disabled. Language evolves.
>
> yes, yes it does. at one time 'pickaninnies' was fairly innocuous, but
you
> don't hear it much anymore. like it or not, your use of words help form
> people's impressions of you. ignore that at your peril.


I wonder if Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben agree with you, blake...


--
Best
Greg

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>
> Note that the Collins Essential English Dictionary has the "offensive"
> notation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language does
> not. Random House says "sometimes offensive". So . . . . . it is a matter
> of personal use and opinion as to whether it is offensive or not. If you
> replace it with another word that has the same meaning, it is just as
> offensive.

There exists that possibility that "cripple" can be used in a
non-offensive manner depending on who's using the word. I have the
advantage of being crippled myself from childhood polio. Hell, I'm as
crippled as they come and think it's a hoot when my friends use it. I
have not heard that word uttered from a non-friend - that would probably
be offensive.

>
> While cripple has fallen out of common usage, it was a very common term
> years ago and was not considered any more offensive that handicapped or
> disabled. Language evolves.

I like the word "gimpy" myself. :-)


>
>

Ophelia wrote:

> *OFFENSIVE!*

I rest my case.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Ophelia > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> > Do you want me to quote another English dictionary published by the
> > Oxford University Press that says something very different, namely
> > that the term "crippled" is offensive? I can play advocatus diaboli
> > if need be.
>
> I thought you had already done that when you quoted headlines from cheap
> newspapers.

Like the Daily Telegraph, right?

Victor

(Victor Sack) wrote in news:1ix3wyo.h5mdiy1co7lm9N%
:

> Ophelia > wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack wrote:
>> > Do you want me to quote another English dictionary published by the
>> > Oxford University Press that says something very different, namely
>> > that the term "crippled" is offensive? I can play advocatus diaboli
>> > if need be.
>>
>> I thought you had already done that when you quoted headlines from
cheap
>> newspapers.
>
> Like the Daily Telegraph, right?
>
> Victor
>


Then there are some cripples that don't take the whole world so
seriously......

http://www.cripple.com/

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/


It seems funny/strange that the US, UK, and Canada are the leaders in
anti-crippledom. The rest of the world is fine with the word cripple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple

Maybe Cripple Creek should have it's name changed??

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

Killfile all Google Groups posters.........

http://improve-usenet.org/

http://improve-usenet.org/filters_bg.html