"I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread, but it seems to me there are other ways of addressing someone rather than "retarded". Why even go there? I think most people would look at that as insulting and derogatory, imo."
Your response speaks to the very reason I suggest that one should read the whole thread before voicing an opinion on it, danmag. There's an enormous backstory here. You should know it before you post. It isn't a tome, and it only takes a few minutes. Take that time to walk in George's shoes, then post.
You're welcome, George. Try to ignore the name-calling, scheisse-stirring diva. I know that isn't easy. Let his/her name-calling and posts speak for themselves.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Your name is Diva, isn't it? The rest was simply a qualifier - one of which is undeniable - you are name-calling. As to the scheisse-stirring part, well, the fact that you bumped the thread after a year to attack someone else does speak to that, but if offends you so much, I'll retract it. Especially if you refrain from epithets yourself.
After hearing George whine on about what a Special Olympic supporter he is, and that it's okay to use a certian word, I needed to post this.
This is someone who teaches, and I would be the first to pull my kid out of his class.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
My whole point to this was proving that calling ANYONE 'retard' or 'retarded' is flat out wrong. No matter what you do, or who you are related to.
If you have a problem with that, then keep running to George's defense.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
People with disabilities and their families will always have a somewhat different view of terminology than other people will and that will change based on their own personal experiences.
Im wheelchair bound as most of you know and have many friends who are also wheelchair bound because I am a bit of an activist for people with disabilities. Technically speaking the envogue thing these days is "people first" what that means is that even saying "mentally challenged people" is incorrect. You should say "a person who..."
When Im grant writing, when Im working, in certain arenas and company I of course always have to use the correct terminology, but with my friends its a different story and its not uncommon for people to embrace words that were at one point negatively used against them. We have a professional sports team called the yankees!
As for the original topic, I've sat next to people who couldn't control their audible enjoyment but I've had enough exposure to that type of situation to be able to ignore the disruption. Of course if theres a seating arrangement that can be made which will mean the least number of people are disturbed then it should be done, but ejecting them could most certainly be viewed as discrimination.
Of course I'm defending George, Diva. You're being stubbornly unfair, and castigating him unjustly. Not to mention entirely missing his point. I have no idea who George is, and only know him through this thread. You can say you bumped the thread simply to show the article, yet your very first words were an attack upon him. That offends me in many ways. So yes, I spoke to that.
We're all teachers, whether we choose to be or not. I've learned the only lesson you're ever likely to teach me, so now, taking my own advice, I'll ignore the rest of your self-serving posts on the subject.
So, according you you and George, it's okay to use the term 'retarded' and not 'retard'...
You need to look up the meaning of 'self-serving', ghost.
And I have no clue as to what blaxx means. blaxx only posted that this thread shouldn't have been bumped.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Thats hard. Like on the one hand, it can be hard for the audience and cast to focus on the show, but on the other hand just because he is mentally impaired, doesn't mean he has to miss out on the experience. I think it can go either way, but i hope they can make other arrangements so he can see it without being so distracting.
This has nothing to do with the disabled viewer. It has to do with the guardian or parent. It is their judgment that is impaired. That is all there is too it.
Life is not fair, get over it. Money never guarantees anything. Not even a noise free environment to see a show.
Herbie: "Honey, Don't you know there's a depression?"
Rose: "Of Course I know, I Watch Fox News"
-(modified)Gypsy
Broadway Schedule
December 5th- Hamilton, On Your Feet
December 19th- Noises Off, Edith Piaf Concert at Town Hall
I was just on the road this past fall stage managing for Theatreworks. As part of our curtain speech we asked that the parents and teachers kindly remove ANY student who became disruptive so that those around them could continue to enjoy the show. And let me tell you, the parents/teachers/chaperones of the special needs students were always the FIRST to comply with this request. At many venues we had a number of students brought in through the local Board of MR/DD (and yes, that R stands for retardation). A good majority of the students were able to control their actions and behaviors with very minimal outbursts or disruptions. A handful were not. Their caretakers understood this and would take them out of the theatre when they became disruptive, as well as come up to me or one of the cast afterwards and apologize for the disruption.
It is not an easy situation to handle (and probably even more difficult in a theatre filled with anywhere from a couple hundred to a couple thousand small children who are easily enough distracted to begin with), but I am thankful that in nine times out of ten, the person responsible actually did take the responsibility into their own hands to ensure that everyone around them had a good time.
PS - Reading through this whole thread by this point did take far more than the few minutes that Ghostlight says it would, but I wholeheartedly agree that anybody posting to it should do just that.
This is ludicrous. EVERYONE, regardless of their abilities and disabilities, should be allowed to go to the theatre. Everyone has the right to be entertained and to However, I do think that all who attend the theatre, regardless of age and ability, must be respectful of their fellow audience-members and the performers onstage. That includes loud breathing, talking, body odor, etc. I think it is fine to bring young children and disabled people/elderly people to the theatre as long as they are quiet, attentive audience members. I know several handicapt people who adore the theatre and it is a joy to see them get wrapped up in a show and forget about everything for 2 or 3 hours.