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
>