A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=============
I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very
diverse of you.
===========

This sort of nit-picking does nothing to advance the discussion. Given
the context of the thread thus far, we all know full well the nature of
the disability KMAN is referring to.

But do "we" accept his attempt to narrow the discussion?

No, not I.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:25 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=============
I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very
diverse of you.
===========

This sort of nit-picking does nothing to advance the discussion. Given
the context of the thread thus far, we all know full well the nature of
the disability KMAN is referring to.

But do "we" accept his attempt to narrow the discussion?

No, not I.

I haven't attempted to narrow anything. I openly and clearly agreed with you
that a person with a disability who has the intellectual capacity to
participate in the same curriculum as a non-disabled peer should,
unquestionably, be in the same classroom as those peers.

Thus, we can move on from any further discussion of people with physical
disabilities with the traits described.

We are left with a discussion about other types of disabilities, mainly
intellectual disabilities, which is, and has been, the topic I have been
discussing for some time, and you have responded to my posts knowing full
well that is the population I am talking about.