Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:53:55 +0100
Message-ID: <9DC70EEAAFAE154AAA19F676DA93D12218F6DD@EDENMAIL.eden.gov.uk>
Thread-Topic: Accessibility for Deaf
Thread-Index: AcXLSjJXhD5x69EiQ7+1uHj0LMzyrQAA6VDwAAAOTuA=
From: "Julian Scarlett" <Julian.Scarlett@eden.gov.uk>
To: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Received-SPF: none (maggie.w3.org: domain of Julian.Scarlett@eden.gov.uk does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Subject: RE: Accessibility for Deaf
Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Sender: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ENteT-0005LP-Rj@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:56:49 +0000


After over a year's absence from this list (for a variety a reasons) I =
resubscribed yesterday. I'm starting to regret that decision after =
seeing the way that good questions are side-lined in favour of a petty =
argument over the contextual meaning of the English language. Although =
of interest from a linguistic standpoint this thread is doing little to =
futher the cause of web accessibility. This list is meant to deal with =
web accessibility is it not? Take it off-list.

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org=20
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:46 PM
> To: Randal Rust; WAI-IG
> Subject: RE: Accessibility for Deaf
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =20
> > > To suggest that a word
> > > should never be removed from use because it is clear, even if
> > > offensive, is just incorrect in my opinion.
> >=20
> > I find that interesting, because that is not at all what I said.
>=20
> You wrote: Of course, the term should be used responsibly,=20
> but to suggest that it can be removed from context is just=20
> plain ridiculous, especially when the context is so clear.
>=20
> I see that you wrote "remove from context", not "remove from=20
> use".  I agree that the word does have a permanent meaning in=20
> that context, but am willing to go a step further and say=20
> that it shouldn't be used in this context because of the=20
> negative connotations that come from the word's origins which=20
> were based in people's ignorance of this disability.
>=20
> AWK
>=20
>=20
> Scanned by MessageLabs for EDC
>=20