home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / misc / kids / 33162 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-22  |  1.0 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!njitgw.njit.edu!hertz.njit.edu!onn
  2. From: onn@hertz.njit.edu (ruth onn ece fac)
  3. Newsgroups: misc.kids
  4. Subject: Re: Branding kids, IQ tests, smart vs dumb (Was: Re: Seminar Program)
  5. Summary: Euphemisms
  6. Message-ID: <1993Jan22.135143.16801@njitgw.njit.edu>
  7. Date: 22 Jan 93 13:51:43 GMT
  8. References: <1993Jan20.215406.18366@clpd.kodak.com>
  9. Sender: Ruth Onn
  10. Followup-To: onn@hertz.njit.edu
  11. Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
  12. Lines: 10
  13. Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu
  14.  
  15. In article <1993Jan20.215406.18366@clpd.kodak.com> staffan@ca.serum.kodak.com (Kenneth Staffan (x37507)) writes:
  16. >I don't really like the label "gifted".  One reason is because I don't
  17. >like the unspoken implication that the _other_ children didn't get "gifts".
  18. >In the 60's? 70's?, in New York State, certain children were "accelerated".  
  19. >This term didn't bother me as much
  20.  
  21. Isn't it funny that there are euphemisms for "smart", a supposedly
  22. positive attribute, as well as for "dumb".
  23.  
  24. Ruth. 
  25.