I don't agree Mag.  To me (and I stress the "to me" part), it seems like the
reporter found a way to capitalize on the public's tendency to feel pity for
a PWD.  I feel a little like that reporter exploited the child to lend
emotion to his piece.

Some might take issue with the disability-first description (one-legged boy)
as well.  I wouldn't have phrased it that way myself, but I don't understand
the motive for including anything about this child at all.

Just a thought, but I could be off base.  I've probably been off base two or
three million times, and that's just since this morning.

I got pulled over by a cop a little while ago, and I can tell you I was off
base then.  He was a super guy and let me off the hook, but I deserved a
ticket.  Point being, I've had one incredibly good break today, if you don't
think I deserve one here, I won't  gripe if you let it all hang out - ha!

In a message dated 05/09/2000 1:54:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Betty,
 I fail to see anything wrong with the description of the boy.  A one legged
 boy is after all, a one legged boy.  I saw no saccharine in the quote. The
 reporter did his job in describing the boy, and did it without adding any
 adjectives.

 mag
  >>