This sure has been an interesting debate.
In all of this, regarding the sighted world we should be careful that we are not coming across as feeling resentful, unless we are going to be all-out political as well. (In other words, we (if being political) must be prepared to take the consequences, negative as wellas positive.) We each have our own opinions on what is acceptable; and some of us have a higher threshold or thicker skin than others, due to our experiences and circumstances and the ups-and-downs of our lives. In the same way, sighted and non-disabled people each have their own opinions, and they, like us, where the opportunity presents, will try to act according to what they believe. The word 'handicap' isn't being used as much as formerly, which is fine by me. However, the acid test is: does it change for the better the behaviour of the non-blind rest of the world towards our requirements? (And this does include the provision of funds - be they from governmental, and non-governmental philanthropic organisations and from individuals - for our requirements as expressed by us and our agencies and organisations in which, hopefully, we speak for ourselves.)
Referring to something Ed said earlier. African-Americans do use the term 'nigger' among themselves, but (as far as I know, and I'm willing to be 'corrected' if it is to the contry) - as far as I know, they don't like it if people of different colour skin refer to them as niggers. It's like slang, acceptable in some contexts, but not in socially polite circles.
In some parts of the world, blind people refer to each other as 'blinks'. I think that the term 'blinks' as used by anyone to describe blind people is extremely derogatory and betrays a substantial inferiority complex of its user even worse than that which may be experienced when being inappropriately described as handicapped. (I haven't heard the radio ad, by the way.)