Interesting, in view of the fact that the term 'handicapped' has gotten such a bad rap in the last ten years. Personally, I have no problems with the term, but apparently Ms. Smart does. Kat On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:44:30 EST "BG Greer, PhD" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > In a message dated 1/10/2003 12:59:25 PM > Central Standard Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > > > Bobby, > > > > This might be enough to make you mad! > > > > > > Thanks, Kendall. For some reason, it doesn't > make me mad. Rehab literature is > similar to Kris Kristopherson's song, "Let's > get together and steal each > others' songs". We all steal ideas. The one > gripe I have with Smart is she is > sloppy in places and skews facts to fit her > premises. I spent one summer in > the library researching the Oxford English > Dictionary for the origins of > risabilty related terms and another summer in > the law library researching > laws and court cases. She reduces all this to a > sentence or two and they are > not accurate. For example. the term "handicap" > , she interpets as begging, > "cap in hand", which is opposite to the > structure of the word. The > interpretation I quoted from the OED said the > term drived from placing odds > on race horses. Some one would write the odds > and placed them in a cap and > held it high, so the bettor could not see the > slips as he was picking his > slip, thus hand in cp, translated in this > context as odds place on a superior > creature to make it more equal! Sorta different > from Professor Smart's > version!! In her sectionon law, she does > similar stuff. > > Bobby >