Mentally Impaired Audience Members — Page 18

"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.

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.

Updated On: 3/21/09 at 03:49 PM

<----waiting for non-personal attack posts.....still.

---

And yet you keep racing back to defend him.

I'm not a teacher, so you don't have to chose me.


Frnkly, Iprefered you didn't.


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.

---

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.

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.

---

Updated On: 3/22/09 at 09:13 PM

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.

---

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.