A man (whom I will call Steve, because that's his name) recently posted a message to an Internet discussion group for the visually-impaired, remarking that he suffers from glaucoma. Moments later (which is how fast a person can be verbally pecked into oblivion on the Internet) a woman shot back something like, "I don't suffer. I deal with it." Almost before her bytes were dry, another woman upbraided that writer for being "glib," suggesting that she just doesn't fully appreciate the ample opportunities for suffering which glaucoma offers.

      And so passed another moment of cybergrace.

      The problem here is that the word, "suffer," is both a transitive and an intransitive verb (please bear with me.) The man would have been more correct using the word in its transitive form by saying that he "suffers glaucoma." This would mean that he puts up with glaucoma, rather than that he is emotionally or physically pained by it.

      Yes, that would have nipped the problem right in the bud. But then some Bubba would surely have started a whole new thread of conversation with, "You say you 'suffer glaucoma?' Well, I suffer you. How about that, Mister Fancy Talker?"

      Anyway, Writer #2, who is evidently not especially bothered by her condition, "suffers glaucoma." Writer #3, who is more emotionally affected by her condition, "suffers from glaucoma."

      Writer #3 might also say that she is "afflicted," to which Writer #2 would probably reply, "I'm not afflicted. I deal with it." In other words, there are at least two ways of looking at this disease thing.

      Take the word "handicapped," for another instance. Many visually-impaired people refuse to think of themselves as limited, so they won't go near that word unless it's posted over a good parking space.

      And then there's "partially-sighted." What is the difference between the partially-sighted and the partially-blind? Or are they really the same people, depending upon whether their self-concept glass is half full or half empty? Is it really necessary to tell people that you can see a little bit, when what you really mean is that you can't see very well? A woman asks why you stepped on her pet Pekingese. Do you tell her it was because you can see a little bit?

      Here's another. Are we "victims" of disease, or do we just "have" one? Steve could have said, "I have glaucoma," but, very likely, Woman #3 would have sneered, "Or does it have you?"

      Since misunderstandings and strong feelings teem on both sides of this issue, I have simply decided to avoid these words in lieu of "affected by." I know it sounds a bit pretentious, but it's nearly unimpeachable. Who would ever argue, "I'm not affected. I deal with it?"