Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!rgh
From: rgh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: 'Brain-damaged' considered b.-d.
Message-ID: <2025@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 02:31:02 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.2025
Posted: Sat Mar  9 02:31:02 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:18:35 EST
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:3900172:000:953
Nf-From: inmet!rgh    Mar  7 10:53:00 1985

This "brain-damaged" epithet is getting sorely overworked on the net.
When we can speak of someone or something being flawed, impaired,
marred, spoiled;  batty, bedlamite, bonkers, buggy, cracked, crazed,
cuckoo, daft, demented, deranged, loco, lunatic, mad, maniac, mindless,
non compos mentis, nuts, Reaganite, screwy, teched, unbalanced,
unsound, witless, wrong;  senseless, spastic, spasmodic, convulsive;
doped, spaced-out, stoned, zonked;  {beef,beetle,block,dung,thick}headed,
dense, doltish, dull, duncical, numskulled, pinhead;  asinine, fatuous,
foolish, silly, simple;  brute, lumbering, oafish;  half-assed, incompetent;
backward, retarded, imbecilic, moronic;
when we have a whole precisely nuanced vocabulary of intellectual abuse
to draw upon, individually and in combination, isn't it a little  to be limited to a single, now quite trite, adjective?

	Randy Hudson {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!rgh

[Answer to quiz:  yes]