On (18 Oct 05) Cindy Haglund wrote to ALL...
 CH> I get the IMPRESSION the 'disorder' is called a disorder based on
 CH> social skills. That if you're not a party animal, or you don't like
 CH> sports you're uh suffering a DISORDER rather than simply being
 CH> different from the status quo?
 CH>
 CH> Once upon a time being left handed was considered a 'disorder'... and
 CH> being 'gay' likewise.
 CH>
 CH>
 CH> What do you think? Is medical science defining conditions based on
 CH> status quo?

Of course -- that's the definition of "disorder" (can't work within the
order of the day/time/culture)

 CH> I always thought conditions were 'disorders' if they interfere with
 CH> being able to function in a way that lends to self support...''

Yeah, that sounds like a good overall definition, but then, errr, all
those organizations that profitably exist solely because of their pet
disorder would cease to be, and the directors of them would be forced to
steal the old-fashioned way for their free money!

Because I care,
<+]::-{)}  (Cyberpope(the Bishop of ROM!))


--- PPoint 1.76