Pffff. Persaonlly, I think everyone involved is a [CENSORED].

MikeB4: Good to see the action taken, there is no excuse for publishing offensive terms like this.

Not concerned about 20,000 books going to waste over an exceptionally small percentage of people who *might* get offended? Seriously?!

networkn:

 

MikeB4: Good to see the action taken, there is no excuse for publishing offensive terms like this.

 

Not concerned about 20,000 books going to waste over an exceptionally small percentage of people who *might* get offended? Seriously?!

 

 

 

i dont find it offensive it is just ignorance and the book should have never got to where it is. just because only a few people find it offensive doesnt change the fact that it is an offensive term and it should never be used in a civilized society .

vexxxboy:

 

networkn:

 

MikeB4: Good to see the action taken, there is no excuse for publishing offensive terms like this.

 

Not concerned about 20,000 books going to waste over an exceptionally small percentage of people who *might* get offended? Seriously?!

 

 

 

 

i dont find it offensive it is just ignorance and the book should have never got to where it is. just because only a few people find it offensive doesnt change the fact that it is an offensive term and it should never be used in a civilized society .

 

Right, but that doesn't say whether you think recalling 20k of books which will be destroyed is justifiable and reasonable, instead of say, including a note in each book with an apology?

I have to say I agree  with you on this one. Books have been published before with sticker corrections. I don't see why this one couldn't have been. It's not the end of the world. Unless of course she wants to conceal the extent of her plagiarism after the fact.

Rikkitic:

 

I have to say I agree  with you on this one. Books have been published before with sticker corrections. I don't see why this one couldn't have been. It's not the end of the world. Unless of course she wants to conceal the extent of her plagiarism after the fact.

 

 

 

Agreed, the apparent plagiarism is *way* more concerning. 

networkn:

 

MikeB4: Good to see the action taken, there is no excuse for publishing offensive terms like this.

 

Not concerned about 20,000 books going to waste over an exceptionally small percentage of people who *might* get offended? Seriously?!

 

 

 

Since when has offensive remarks, actions, words been OK because of numbers? Last time I looked books were made of recyclable material. Seriously at what level would it become unacceptable? 1,000 people, 100,000 people, 1,000,000 ?

Rikkitic:

 

I have to say I agree  with you on this one. Books have been published before with sticker corrections. I don't see why this one couldn't have been. It's not the end of the world. Unless of course she wants to conceal the extent of her plagiarism after the fact.

 

 

 

What if you were the target of the offensive remarks?

I have been the target of plenty of offensive remarks.

Rikkitic:

 

I have been the target of plenty of offensive remarks.

 

 

As have I, and I have far better things to with my life than waste time and energy getting bent out of shape about it.

From what I have read, it does seem like a daft book with little scientific merit. Having said that, it does seem like a considerable over-reaction to recall and pulp 20,000 copies over one use of archaic term that some people dislike.

Moreover, many of the books that are now regarded as being of outstanding merit would never have been published if the test applied was that they mustn't offend anyone, ever. Darwin's Origin of the Species, which greatly and deeply offended a large number of religious people when it was published, springs to mind. Ditto for Copernicus when he published a book saying the earth circles the sun.

Plus, I'm personally attached to freedom of speech. And that includes the right to say things other people might not always like. We lose that it at our great peril.

The cynic in me wonders if this isn't a clever marketing ploy. A bad book written by someone who seems to be a crank, that would have sunk almost unnoticed in a sea of other bad books, is suddenly getting a lot of free publicity. Hmmmm......

Please tell how the term is not offensive and racist?

"Down syndrome refers to the 19th century English physician J. Langdon Down who described the condition in 1866. In great error, Langdon Down attributed the condition to a "reversion" to the "mongoloid race." He held that evolution had been reversed and there had been a sort of backslide from the superior Caucasian to the inferior Oriental race. The misnomer "mongolism" is incorrect and racist ."

Wasn't Mongolism the medical term for Downs in the past? Not saying it is right to use it now but are we not seeing a storm in a teacup?

Also I need to get one of the 20,000 copied before they are destroyed as they could have value in the future...

MikeB4:

 

Please tell how the term is not offensive and racist?

 

"Down syndrome refers to the 19th century English physician J. Langdon Down who described the condition in 1866. In great error, Langdon Down attributed the condition to a "reversion" to the "mongoloid race." He held that evolution had been reversed and there had been a sort of backslide from the superior Caucasian to the inferior Oriental race. The misnomer "mongolism" is incorrect and racist ."

 

No-one is disputing it's technically offensive and or racist, but what is being argued is what should be done about it. I and many others consider it equally offensive to destroy 20,000 books, which yes, technically, can be recycled but will have significant cost and does create environmental effects. 

I *think* most people who would have been offended, would be placated with a heartfelt apology, perhaps a donation to Downs Syndrome Research and an undertaking by the author to learn from their mistake. The small percentage of the small percentage of people who are affected and who wouldn't be placated, doesn't balance out destroying 20,000 books. 

I think you might be being a touch too sensitive on this one. 

indeed it's a waste of resources to scrap 20,000 books.

why not just print an insert or a sticker to the cover ?

who reads dr libby anyway ?

she's nothing but a shill for beds, nutritional supplements etc.