Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
austinsmirk said:
I can guarantee if you have named your child Jaxon, Kyal, Barclay, Shaniqua, Sienna, Ayrton, Shelby, Lulabelle- they'll have some special medical definition to explain their dreadful behaviour.
Indeed.Sienna Miller. Medically, smoking hot. Let's her get away with murder no doubt.
R E S T E C P said:
Even if my child had a condition like dyslexia, I would refuse to let him be labelled. If you struggle with something then you have to work harder - what's the point of opting out with "I can't achieve much but it's OK because I have a certificate saying it's harder for me".
One of my kids, like my brother, has severe dyslexia. Getting them diagnosed officially is the best thing that happened to both of them. Once there is a diagnosis they get extra help at school, extra time in exams, all sorts of things that other kids don't get. By having a proper diagnosis both have done better than they ever could have done alone without help.Telling your kid to work harder will achieve nothing with proper dyslexia. It's like telling someone in a wheelchair to just try a bit harder at standing up.
fomb said:
R E S T E C P said:
Even if my child had a condition like dyslexia, I would refuse to let him be labelled. If you struggle with something then you have to work harder - what's the point of opting out with "I can't achieve much but it's OK because I have a certificate saying it's harder for me".
One of my kids, like my brother, has severe dyslexia. Getting them diagnosed officially is the best thing that happened to both of them. Once there is a diagnosis they get extra help at school, extra time in exams, all sorts of things that other kids don't get. By having a proper diagnosis both have done better than they ever could have done alone without help.Telling your kid to work harder will achieve nothing with proper dyslexia. It's like telling someone in a wheelchair to just try a bit harder at standing up.
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. Traditionally/officially there was no such distinction as "severe" dyslexia. Dyslexia is a severe condition and as you know can benefit greatly from specialist help. You can't be a bit dyslexic any more than you can be a bit pregnant. But there are loads of parents these days explaining their child's poor academic performance as "mild dyslexia". My opinion is that it makes a mockery of a serious condition.
Maybe the condition should be split into mild/severe grades so priority can be given to helping genuine cases like your brother/child.
R E S T E C P said:
You can't be a bit dyslexic any more than you can be a bit pregnant.
True, but there are definitely different severities. I've met people who just cannot process text on a page, but also others that just have trouble on the maths side, or parsing complex written instruction. IMO from a schooling point of view though, it should be a boolean. You are, or are not dyslexic.fomb said:
R E S T E C P said:
You can't be a bit dyslexic any more than you can be a bit pregnant.
True, but there are definitely different severities. I've met people who just cannot process text on a page, but also others that just have trouble on the maths side, or parsing complex written instruction. IMO from a schooling point of view though, it should be a boolean. You are, or are not dyslexic.walm said:
R E S T E C P said:
You can't be a bit dyslexic any more than you can be a bit pregnant.
Yet...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DyslexiaSecond line, "Different people are affected to varying degrees."
From the National Institute of Health in the US.
But sure... you know better.
Whereas someone with dyslexia will also have a form of dysgraphia that typically means their writing is poorly legible when written spontaneously but when it's copied directly from another source the letter formation and spacing is somewhere approaching average.
If you were to look at a piece of writing i copied and the same that a dyslexic person had copied you would say they had mild dysgraphia because it doesn't look that bad when in actual fact it's only good because they copied it.
Equally i do see your point that you're saying there's over diagnosis, it's definitely something i've seen, typically it's not a wrong diagnosis but rather they are classed as more disabled than they really are, be it due to pressure from the parents, poor testing or some other incentive.
Edited by Silent1 on Wednesday 11th January 18:51
Suppose the Anglo Saxons, or at least the Angles, had never come to Britain but decided to go somewhere with a better climate. Would England still exist but somewhere else? Could we be driving on the left and drinking room temperature beer somewhere on the cote d'azur or on the coast of the Aegean?
Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose the Anglo Saxons, or at least the Angles, had never come to Britain but decided to go somewhere with a better climate. Would England still exist but somewhere else? Could we be driving on the left and drinking room temperature beer somewhere on the cote d'azur or on the coast of the Aegean?
Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
Every time it gets a bit chilly I think we should have moved the whole country to a nice corner of India while we had the opportunity.Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose the Anglo Saxons, or at least the Angles, had never come to Britain but decided to go somewhere with a better climate. Would England still exist but somewhere else? Could we be driving on the left and drinking room temperature beer somewhere on the cote d'azur or on the coast of the Aegean?
Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
As long as we still ended up speaking English, with all the AONB, historically interesting things, monuments, castles, cathedrals, etc I'd be happy with that. Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
But change one thing and we'd be completely different than how we are now.
What possible advantage is there to flat roofs? I stayed with friends recently and they have a flat roof which has a lip about an inch high all the way round and it just had a layer of water (and ice) on it for the entire time I was there. I just don't see how not having even a slight slope can be beneficial? Why wouldn't you want water to drain away?
Brother D said:
What possible advantage is there to flat roofs? I stayed with friends recently and they have a flat roof which has a lip about an inch high all the way round and it just had a layer of water (and ice) on it for the entire time I was there. I just don't see how not having even a slight slope can be beneficial? Why wouldn't you want water to drain away?
In arid climates it lets you walk around on the roof and is probably cooler as the sun will have less to hit.No idea why you'd want it in Britain!
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose the Anglo Saxons, or at least the Angles, had never come to Britain but decided to go somewhere with a better climate. Would England still exist but somewhere else? Could we be driving on the left and drinking room temperature beer somewhere on the cote d'azur or on the coast of the Aegean?
Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
I don't think so. I have nothing to back it up, but I reckon the British (especially English) class structure has a lot to do with a bunch of posh Frenchies coming over and ruling the locals with their new fancy language that only the educated could understand. And before that a bunch of Romans coming to our mud huts and sending our best and brightest over to Rome to see what life was really about.Bit of a missed opportunity if so.
I think our class struggles have probably defined a lot about how we've worked out. The vikings could have turned us into Denmark but for the Normans and southerners.
Having said that, I guess all that was after the Angles came here. It could have been Picts, or whatever the Welsh had kicking around that were dominant but if the Normans still triumphed in 1066, then I guess all of the above would still happen. So the Anglo-Saxons might not have made a Britain elsewhere, but the UK may have been inevitable due to it's geography.
glazbagun said:
Brother D said:
What possible advantage is there to flat roofs? I stayed with friends recently and they have a flat roof which has a lip about an inch high all the way round and it just had a layer of water (and ice) on it for the entire time I was there. I just don't see how not having even a slight slope can be beneficial? Why wouldn't you want water to drain away?
In arid climates it lets you walk around on the roof and is probably cooler as the sun will have less to hit.No idea why you'd want it in Britain!
RammyMP said:
glazbagun said:
Brother D said:
What possible advantage is there to flat roofs? I stayed with friends recently and they have a flat roof which has a lip about an inch high all the way round and it just had a layer of water (and ice) on it for the entire time I was there. I just don't see how not having even a slight slope can be beneficial? Why wouldn't you want water to drain away?
In arid climates it lets you walk around on the roof and is probably cooler as the sun will have less to hit.No idea why you'd want it in Britain!
Brother D said:
RammyMP said:
glazbagun said:
Brother D said:
What possible advantage is there to flat roofs? I stayed with friends recently and they have a flat roof which has a lip about an inch high all the way round and it just had a layer of water (and ice) on it for the entire time I was there. I just don't see how not having even a slight slope can be beneficial? Why wouldn't you want water to drain away?
In arid climates it lets you walk around on the roof and is probably cooler as the sun will have less to hit.No idea why you'd want it in Britain!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff