Question:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 , In message What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness?

Agree with me that what she called her green coat was in fact mustard coloured? — ^Thunder^ –

Response:

People with minor ailments like that who throw their legs in the air screaming "don’t be nasty to me I’m disabled" are pathetic, parasitic losers who deserve to be treated with contempt. Maybe, but that does not mean that they are not disabled. "Minor ailments" < "disability"

THat’s my point.  Sometimes "Minor ailments" = disability, if only in paperwork and not in the mind of the, er, afflicted. Let’s talk about thumbs if you want to get to the nitty gritty. How much thumb would someone have to lose before you’d count them as disabled? What happens if they have a whole thumb but little use of it?

Response:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 , In message On Tue, 25 May 2004 , In message What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness? Agree with me that what she called her green coat was in fact mustard coloured? <grin  What colour was it?

Yellow Funnily enough on that subject, I understand that generally colour blindness is passed through the male line. Her father was completely colour blind but she just had problems with certain colours. Led to interesting rows when we were discussing for instance what paint to buy when we were re-decorating. She once brought home these colour blind test charts where, for instance, a colour blind person saw different images to those not colour blind – by squinting my eyes I _could_ see how she could mistake a certain row of dots for a different image (but then on one of my school reports my art master had said that I had a sense of colour well above the average) — ^Thunder^ –

Response:

I bet you do not know what dyslexia is. If you’re unsure, then Google is your friend.

I know.  UK national expert, Dr McLaughlin told me, and I have checked his facts.  You may see David McLaughlin Ph.D. on TV in big cases. DYOR.

To find a site that knows less than I, and gets it wrong?  The top unpaid site heads with "The Gift of Dyslexia" – Dyslexia’s not an advantage for God’s bloody sake.  That’s a lie. It is notable however, how few of the sites use the phrase "disability" to describe the condition.

I’m not surprised.  What is a disappointment, however, typical of the British if not mankind, is the proportion of people who make pronouncements about things like dyslexia, without knowing what they are.  UK psychiatrists seem to be doing that with hyperactivity (does not, and never did, mean very active). As for your argument, you *have a case;* but the British make it worse.   When you start making minor neurological brain malfunctions, such as dyslexia, as common in females as males; or mental illness as common in men as women; as the British do, you devalue the meaning of these terms. You said some milk their dyslexia.  When the BBC’s blind correspondent, Peter White, asked blind listeners to say if they had ever "used" the fact that they are blind, the response was stupid question.  Be realistic – if people are disabled, the British are far too mean to make up for it. When you have noted that I say you have a case, may I again ask you to define Dyslexia? — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf/index.html

Response:

I again ask you to define Dyslexia?

Why you need my definition when there’s a perfectly good one at the Dyslexia Institute is beyond me, but since their site says "Dyslexia is now firmly established as a congenital and developmental condition. Its cause has not been fully confirmed but the effect is to create neurological anomalies in the brain. These anomalies bring about varying degrees of difficulty in learning when using words, and sometimes symbols." that’s good enough for me. Like I said, if you need more, go look it up. Their definition is good enough for me. But you’re missing the point. Dyslexia, irrespective of the vociferous nature of its supporters, or its legal status, is not by any sensible definition of the word, a disability. *That* is my point. Paul. — . A .sig is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for a personality . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.   Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long." . EMail: Unless invited to, don’t. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

Response:

Huh?  Who said dyslexia doesn’t exist? You’re starting to make it up now!

 You did, without knowing perhaps.  That’s what not pigeon-holing it means. Something like recognising there is a problem, but treating the person as an individual, rather than an illness.  Do that with cancer, and the patient dies. You should pigeon-hole dyslexia:  say what it is, (and what it is not – everything else). Now you say I cannot.  One web page I found has an accurate definition of dyslexia.  Took time, but I got there. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with pigeon-holing anything.

That’s exactly what pigeon-holing is:  setting its limits.  What’s really annoying about the definition you were given, is it is not pigeon-holed, and therefore includes just about every problem with learning. Presumably, these people think that when one stops learning, the dyslexia stops.  Of course not, but it follows from what they say. I suggest you lose the white heat of righteous indignation and calm down a bit. Your reasoning is slipping badly.

1.  righteous indignation – guilty. 2.  calm down – no need. If you ever do get through the BS, and understand what dyslexia really is, it is unlikely to alter your conclusion, which I think is roughly that "dyslexia cannot, of itself, be called a disability, without devaluing the term disability." — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf

Response:

People with minor ailments like that who throw their legs in the air screaming "don’t be nasty to me I’m disabled" are pathetic, parasitic losers who deserve to be treated with contempt.

Maybe, but that does not mean that they are not disabled.

Response:

It is notable however, how few of the sites use the phrase "disability" to describe the condition. Your point would be?

He might be desperate – his post gives me that impression – but I am not.   You may dispute, with Demetrius Zeluff and others, whether or not dyslexia is a disability, but I do not think your views are necessarily incompatible with his. In my opinion, since I was not asked, your view is a matter of taste, but it appears to me incomplete.  You have good grounds for dismissing dyslexia as no more of a disability than Tony Blair is a socialist, but is that all that needs to be said on the question of dyslexia and disability? I promise you it is not. — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf

Response:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 , In message Dyslexia, irrespective of the vociferous nature of its supporters, or its legal status, is not by any sensible definition of the word, a disability. *That* is my point. Paul.

My (ex) wife was (still is) colour blind. I don’t think she ever considers she has a disability although being pedantic I suppose a strict definition of disability is the lack of an ability to do something (whether it is to read words or see colours) as others see them. — ^Thunder^ –

Response:

Demetrius Zeluff  said We all lack the ability to do something. I can’t skateboard, for example. What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness? Get employment in the Electronics industry?

That’s exactly what my husband wished to when he left school, and couldn’t, bing colourblind.  Passed the interview, but failed that test. It certainly affected his life, as he took a somewhat boring office job, till he eventually realised what he’d like to do instead. But the real difference is, he can’t learn to tell red from green, Paul could learn to skateboard.  Badly perhaps. —  kat    ^..^<

Response:

People with minor ailments like that who throw their legs in the air screaming "don’t be nasty to me I’m disabled" are pathetic, parasitic losers who deserve to be treated with contempt. Maybe, but that does not mean that they are not disabled.

"Minor ailments" < "disability" Paul. — . A .sig is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for a personality . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.   Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long." . EMail: Unless invited to, don’t. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is notable however, how few of the sites use the phrase "disability" to describe the condition. Your point would be? He might be desperate – his post gives me that impression – but I am not.   You may dispute, with Demetrius Zeluff and others, whether or not dyslexia is a disability, but I do not think your views are necessarily incompatible with his. In my opinion, since I was not asked, your view is a matter of taste, but it appears to me incomplete.  You have good grounds for dismissing dyslexia as no more of a disability than Tony Blair is a socialist, but is that all that needs to be said on the question of dyslexia and disability? I promise you it is not.

Nobody, including me, is advocating censoring anything. Paul. — . A .sig is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for a personality . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.   Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long." . EMail: Unless invited to, don’t. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

Response:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 , In message What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness? Agree with me that what she called her green coat was in fact mustard coloured?

<grin  What colour was it? Paul. — . A .sig is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for a personality . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.   Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long." . EMail: Unless invited to, don’t. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

Response:

That many people hate the word disabled. It doesn’t stop it being used inaccurately as a feeble attempt at winning a lost argument either. You do not have a case for saying, as you have, that dyslexia does not mean a lack of ability.  You may think describing dyslexia as a disability is unhelpful – and for that, as I have said, you have a case – but you have none for saying it does not exist.

Huh?  Who said dyslexia doesn’t exist?  You’re starting to make it up now! What word would you use to pigeon hole dyslexia; ’syndrome’, ‘illness’, ‘condition’, ‘retardation’, ? Don’t recall pigeon-holing it anywhere. You told me I could find a definition from Google.

Yes. That does not mean a single word definition, which is what you were asking for above. Again, you’re making it up. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now you say I cannot.  One web page I found has an accurate definition of dyslexia.  Took time, but I got there.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with pigeon-holing anything. I suggest you lose the white heat of righteous indignation and calm down a bit. Your reasoning is slipping badly. Paul. — . A .sig is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for a personality . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.   Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long." . EMail: Unless invited to, don’t. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

Response:

That many people hate the word disabled. It doesn’t stop it being used inaccurately as a feeble attempt at winning a lost argument either.

You do not have a case for saying, as you have, that dyslexia does not mean a lack of ability.  You may think describing dyslexia as a disability is unhelpful – and for that, as I have said, you have a case – but you have none for saying it does not exist. What word would you use to pigeon hole dyslexia; ’syndrome’, ‘illness’, ‘condition’, ‘retardation’, ? Don’t recall pigeon-holing it anywhere.

You told me I could find a definition from Google. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Now you say I cannot.  One web page I found has an accurate definition of dyslexia.  Took time, but I got there. — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Demetrius Zeluff  said We all lack the ability to do something. I can’t skateboard, for example. What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness? Get employment in the Electronics industry? That’s exactly what my husband wished to when he left school, and couldn’t, bing colourblind.  Passed the interview, but failed that test. It certainly affected his life, as he took a somewhat boring office job, till he eventually realised what he’d like to do instead.

Curiously; I did get a job in electronics and *desperately* want to get out of it, into a boring office job.  Perhaps I should start applying, eh? My last employers were so clueless that they never thought to ask people if they were colour blind, and the ‘resistor tests’ were all faked, so there were a few colourblind people working there. Everything had a five digit part number.  There were two stores people; one was colourblind, the other was dyslexic. I can feel an alt.sysadmin style rant coming on. But the real difference is, he can’t learn to tell red from green, Paul could learn to skateboard.  Badly perhaps.

This colourblind stores chap had a good guess rate; about 85% accurate, which made him better than most of the shop floor.

Response:

I again ask you to define Dyslexia? Why you need my definition

I’m sure you’re aware that Tom Moore is a fuck headed nong and that nothing useful can be gained from a conversation with him.

Response:

My (ex) wife was (still is) colour blind. I don’t think she ever considers she has a disability although being pedantic I suppose a strict definition of disability is the lack of an ability to do something (whether it is to read words or see colours) as others see them.

We all lack the ability to do something. I can’t skateboard, for example. What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness? It’s a question of degree. Dyslexic people have reasoning, memory and reading/comprehension difficulties. Partially deaf people (like me) have difficulty hearing and comprehending. Partially sighted people have difficulty seeing, especially at low light levels. And so on. None of the above are disabled. With a willingness to do something about it and a little help people like that/us lead normal, or very close to normal lives. People with minor ailments like that who throw their legs in the air screaming "don’t be nasty to me I’m disabled" are pathetic, parasitic losers who deserve to be treated with contempt. Paul. — . A .sig is all well and good, but it’s no substitute for a personality . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.   Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long." . EMail: Unless invited to, don’t. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

Response:

Demetrius Zeluff  said Get employment in the Electronics industry? That’s exactly what my husband wished to when he left school, and couldn’t, bing colourblind.  Passed the interview, but failed that test. It certainly affected his life, as he took a somewhat boring office job, till he eventually realised what he’d like to do instead. Curiously; I did get a job in electronics and *desperately* want to get out of it, into a boring office job.  Perhaps I should start applying, eh?

It’s a long time since he had that, he became a computer operator and now he’s an IT contractor who, if he had his time again, reckons he’d choose to be a plumber. My last employers were so clueless that they never thought to ask people if they were colour blind, and the ‘resistor tests’ were all faked, so there were a few colourblind people working there. Everything had a five digit part number.  There were two stores people; one was colourblind, the other was dyslexic. I can feel an alt.sysadmin style rant coming on. But the real difference is, he can’t learn to tell red from green, Paul could learn to skateboard.  Badly perhaps. This colourblind stores chap had a good guess rate; about 85% accurate, which made him better than most of the shop floor.

Stores is one thing, my husband wanted to be an engineer. —  kat    ^..^<

Response:

Your point would be? That many people hate the word disabled.

Yes, especially government, especially British governments.  Disability means they have an obligation to spend money to help the disabled. One way to get around this is to ignore it, or pretend it does not exist, like the British and hyperactivity (something UK medical scientists never said). Another, like the British and mental illness, is to exaggerate its occurrence, so that 1:4 of the UK population are supposed to be mentally ill.  That way we simply cannot afford to pay for the treatment of 15 million people, can we? What word would you use to pigeon hole dyslexia; ’syndrome’, ‘illness’, ‘condition’, ‘retardation’, ?

Syndrome is worse, although the term means the degree to which it places its dis-at-ease varies.  Syndrome kind of sounds like doesn’t really exist, or is an excuse, but most diseases are syndromes. I would prefer to identify the cause of your dyslexia, and call it that. — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf

Response:

If you look up "disability" in, for example, Merriam Websters dictionary, you’ll find, under the sub-reference marked "learning disability"  the following "any of various conditions (as dyslexia) that interfere with an individual’s ability to learn and so result in impaired functioning in language, reasoning, or academic skills and that are thought to be caused by difficulties in processing and integrating information"

Someone thinks a "learning disability" needs to be defined, beyond something like a disablement of learning function?  Learning Disability is IQ < 70. "Something that hinders or incapacitates"

Indeed, but as Paul Harper will doubtless remind us, a long bus journey to school, hinders learning:  you don’t call that a disability, although in the strict sense, I suppose it is. So it seems that there *are* plenty of sensible definitions of the word "disability" that encompass dyslexia

There are, I agree, but I don’t see a sensible definition of dyslexia.  All we’ve been told is that it is difficulties learning when using words and/or difficulties learning when using symbols.  I suppose difficulties leaning with music is excluded, but it does seem to include a lot. Use those definitions, and Paul is right:  it does not set us apart. — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf

Response:

My (ex) wife was (still is) colour blind. I don’t think she ever considers she has a disability although being pedantic I suppose a strict definition of disability is the lack of an ability to do something (whether it is to read words or see colours) as others see them. We all lack the ability to do something. I can’t skateboard, for example. What, in ordinary life, is she unable to do as a result of colour blindness?

Get employment in the Electronics industry?

Response:

What word would you use to pigeon hole dyslexia; ’syndrome’, ‘illness’, ‘condition’, ‘retardation’, ? Syndrome is worse, although the term means the degree to which it places its dis-at-ease varies.  Syndrome kind of sounds like doesn’t really exist, or is an excuse, but most diseases are syndromes.

A disease is called a syndrome until its cause is found. Until then it’s just a collection of symptoms that may or may not have a common cause.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I again ask you to define Dyslexia? Why you need my definition when there’s a perfectly good one at the Dyslexia Institute is beyond me, but since their site says "Dyslexia is now firmly established as a congenital and developmental condition. Its cause has not been fully confirmed but the effect is to create neurological anomalies in the brain. These anomalies bring about varying degrees of difficulty in learning when using words, and sometimes symbols." that’s good enough for me. Like I said, if you need more, go look it up. Their definition is good enough for me. But you’re missing the point. Dyslexia, irrespective of the vociferous nature of its supporters, or its legal status, is not by any sensible definition of the word, a disability. *That* is my point.

If you look up "disability" in, for example, Merriam Websters dictionary, you’ll find, under the sub-reference marked "learning disability"  the following "any of various conditions (as dyslexia) that interfere with an individual’s ability to learn and so result in impaired functioning in language, reasoning, or academic skills and that are thought to be caused by difficulties in processing and integrating information" The Cambridge International Dictionary gives, under disability "an illness, injury or condition that makes it difficult for someone to do the things that other people do" which is almost identical to the terms used by the Dyslexia Institute The American Heritage  Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines "disability" as "disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area." "Something that hinders or incapacitates" both of which are entirely consistent with the definition of dyslexia you posted from the Dyslexia Institute etc etc etc So it seems that there *are* plenty of sensible definitions of the word "disability" that encompass dyslexia Brian

Response:

Why you need my definition when there’s a perfectly good one at the Dyslexia Institute is beyond me, [ . . . ].

There are so many different, and so many wrong, understandings of dyslexia, like paranoia, hyperactivity and nervous breakdown, that one’s use of the term does convey to your audience the nature of the disorder to which you refer, when you say dyslexia.  Yet dyslexia, like paranoia, can be easily defined. [ One of the others is more difficult, but a definition is possible, the other does not exist. ] [ . . . ] "Dyslexia is now firmly established as a congenital and developmental condition.

That’s not what it is, that’s a proposition of its class, and wrong (or incomplete anyway). Its cause has not been fully confirmed but the effect is to create neurological anomalies in the brain.

That’s not what it is, that’s one its causes, although someone seems to be trying to tell that only "neurological anomalies in the brain" lead to dyslexia.  That’s not true. These anomalies bring about varying degrees of difficulty in learning when using words, and sometimes symbols."

Dyslexia, you’ve been led to believe, is a difficulty in learning when using words, and symbols? that’s good enough for me.

Well, you’re easily pleased then. Further, and importantly, if you believe that, then I do not see how any reasonable person could conclude much other than either (a) the definition supplied is unhelpful; or (b) dyslexia is not a disability. Another case of garbage in – garbage out.  In Einstein’s only source material was garbage, rather than Newton and Leibniz, his would have been much nearer to garbage. Like I said, if you need more, go look it up.

More bull shit?  More waffle?  No thank you. Dyslexia, irrespective of the vociferous nature of its supporters, or its legal status, is not by any sensible definition of the word, a disability. *That* is my point.

And if that’s your premise, your conclusion follows, and does so without a great deal of thought. — http://www.tom-moore.com http://www.tom-moore.com/exten2/docs/ccf

Response:

Related Posts