How do, On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 18:15 -0500, Jeff Vian wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 17:15 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:54, Jeff Vian wrote: > > > > > > Might I suggest in the future, you use the terms physically/mentally > > > > challenged instead of disabled users? Here in the U.S. there is a never > > > > ending supply of politically correct nuts :-(( > > > > > > > Just because you prefer politically correct terminology does not mean > > > everyone has to mollify your sensibilities. > > > > > > I would never ask someone from a different area to change their language > > > use just to satisfy me. > > > > I think you are missing the point. If someone wants Linux to > > Hardly. > > > be able to compete against commercial software then it has to > > compete on the acceptability and political correctness fronts > > as well. I realize a lot of people don't care one way or the > > other and in the free software world market share doesn't matter > > but at least they should recognize that the issue exists. That > > is, commercial software and the people promoting it do make > > concessions to satisfy the potential customers. > > Sometimes. > My post was about the attitude of one poster, and his demand for > politically correct terminology and not about the topic that started > this thread. OK, if you're referring to me, just where did you read I demanded for politically correct terminology? Also, note the topic/subject does have Disabled Users in it. Perhaps Mike McCarty/others like him would have been more receptive to a "Open Letter:How the FOSS Community May Help Physically Challenged Users" subject line ;-) > > > > > You are free to reply with the terms you prefer, just as Marco is free > > > to use the phrases he wishes. > > > > And the potential users are free to avoid dealing with people using > > phrases they dislike and the products they handle. > > > That is my point exactly. Pandering to the demanding is just that, > pandering. It is to a great extent detrimental to the overall > community. Keeping the atmosphere friendly and welcoming is much better > than trying to set artificial rules about what one can or cannot say > and/or how they say it. > > Being a bit understanding and recognizing that others have their own > standards makes the atmosphere more open and easier to deal with and > invites participation. > Having the attitude that "you have to meet my personal standards" (which > is what I responded to) is not in any way productive and is instead > terribly negative. > > It seems many others felt my point was exactly on target. Too bad you > are not as open minded. > Telling them to go away as you did with the phrase above is not helpful > at all. > > > -- > > Les Mikesell > > lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx > > > > >
