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 littleto be limited to a single, now quite trite, adjective? Randy Hudson {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!rgh [Answer to quiz: yes]