<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <467d8a86.7537...@news.btinternet.com>, >max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes >>>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met >>>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless >>>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs' >>>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>> I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All >>the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
>What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max? I presume from what you say he >can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have >the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of >line with the others. RH
As far as my Son goes, we were told that his dyslexia is text book can't seperate his vowels. His reading is fairly good, his spelling is poor, and his handwriting is poor. He is very clever and scores well in his exams which have to be sometimes delivered orally.
>>, and he was the only one not to get a place in nursery school. He went >>to a Montessori pre school. There is not a smell or taste he isn't >>able to recognise
> >You might find it of interest to have > >the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of > >line with the others. RH
> As far as my Son goes, we were told that his dyslexia is text book > can't seperate his vowels. His reading is fairly good, his spelling is > poor, and his handwriting is poor. > He is very clever and scores well in his exams which have to be > sometimes delivered orally.
Plenty of people with dyslexia are very bright. Einstein is reported to have been dyslexic (although some challenge this), similarly Churchill is reported to have suffered from it. Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, John F. Kennedy, Mozart & Leonardo DeVinci have all been claimed to have been dyslexic. For my part I've known plenty of dyslexic students to achieve First class results in finals and to produce distinguished graduate research.
On 24 Jun, 05:32, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <467d8a86.7537...@news.btinternet.com>, > max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
> >>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met > >>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless > >>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs' > >>syndrome. I haven't. RH
> > I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All > >the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
> What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max?
A fantasy condition, apparently.
>I presume from what you say he > can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have > the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of > line with the others. RH
Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia? As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some capacity.
Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
> >, and he was the only one not to get a place in nursery school. He went > >to a Montessori pre school. There is not a smell or taste he isn't > >able to recognise
>On 24 Jun, 05:32, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> In message <467d8a86.7537...@news.btinternet.com>, >> max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>> >>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met >> >>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless >> >>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs' >> >>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>> > I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All >> >the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
>> What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max?
>A fantasy condition, apparently.
Look up Louis Amberg [sp] aka "Pretty Louie" A USA gangster guy. I reckon Pretty was dyslexic, but his talent was misdirected by the poverty of the 1930s.
On Sunday 24 Jun 2007 23:46 in article <467ed677.34098...@news.btinternet.com> of uk.sport.cricket,
max.it(max.it@teatime) wrote:
[snip]
> Look up Louis Amberg
I take it his real surname was Bergman. ... :-)
[Sorry, couldn't resist.]
- -- Regards
Dave [RLU#314465] ====================================================== dwn...@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon) Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail. ======================================================
John Hall wrote: > In article <467c2eb1$0$10762$88260...@free.teranews.com>, > Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes: >> max.it wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> John Hall wrote: >>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$88260...@free.teranews.com>, >>>>> Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot >>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match >>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"? >>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up >>>> writing is "fowling".
>>> Like rember for remember. >> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only > semi-literate.
In message <1182691786.723097.183...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred <longhop2...@hotmail.com> writes
>Plenty of people with dyslexia are very bright. Einstein is reported >to have been dyslexic (although some challenge this), similarly >Churchill is reported to have suffered from it. Alexander Graham Bell, >Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, John F. Kennedy, Mozart & Leonardo >DeVinci have all been claimed to have been dyslexic.
>> >RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
>> >There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
>> It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of >> culture. RH
>You need to learn the difference between assertion and argument. ;o)
>This is simply rubbish, there is evidence that speech has had an effect >on the development of brain function and physiology (i.e. there have >been physical adaptations). There is no evidence that written language >has yet had any effect (it is far more likely to have an effect on >spoken language first). This makes spoken language natural and written >language unnatural.
Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>> > these activities are far too recent to have placed significant >> >evolutionary pressure on brain function (unlike spoken language). As a >> >result there is no good reason to suppose that natural variation leaves >> >us all in a position to acquire these skills with equal facility
>> Do try read what I write. I made the point that humans vary in their >> ability to read as in every other sphere .RH
>You said that "only the severely mentally handicapped should prove >incapable of learning to read". this is not the case, there is no >reason to assume that normal variation in cognitive function should >mean that everyone has the ability to read and write. Unless of course >you include being ilitterate in the definition of mental handicap, >which is a bit of a circular argument.
All middle class children learn to read unless they are severely mentally handicapped. End of story. RH
>Note that dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read or write, just >varying difficulties in reading and writing that you would not expect >given the level of spoken language. You can be dyslexic without being >illiterate.
>> >. In my experience
>> Which is?RH
>RH, you know perfectly well that I am a lecturer in a UK university. >This means that I have both taught a large number of students and been >academic advisor to many students over the past decade or so. I think >I am in a pretty good position to coment on difficulties faced by >university students.
Hilarious pomposity. RH
>> >, dyslexic students are not unknown
>> How do you define a dyslexic? RH
>AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working >definition as any.
On 26 Jun, 19:28, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms > >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may > >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well > >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in > >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal > >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working > >definition as any.
> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
Whereas, of course, with your unique Keele University education, are an instant expert on anything you care to comment on.
> In message <1182675403.446427.186...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
> >> >> A fantasy condition Max.
> >> >RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
> >> >There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
> >> It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of > >> culture. RH
> >You need to learn the difference between assertion and argument. ;o)
> >This is simply rubbish, there is evidence that speech has had an effect > >on the development of brain function and physiology (i.e. there have > >been physical adaptations). There is no evidence that written language > >has yet had any effect (it is far more likely to have an effect on > >spoken language first). This makes spoken language natural and written > >language unnatural.
> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
> >> > these activities are far too recent to have placed significant > >> >evolutionary pressure on brain function (unlike spoken language). As a > >> >result there is no good reason to suppose that natural variation leaves > >> >us all in a position to acquire these skills with equal facility
> >> Do try read what I write. I made the point that humans vary in their > >> ability to read as in every other sphere .RH
> >You said that "only the severely mentally handicapped should prove > >incapable of learning to read". this is not the case, there is no > >reason to assume that normal variation in cognitive function should > >mean that everyone has the ability to read and write. Unless of course > >you include being ilitterate in the definition of mental handicap, > >which is a bit of a circular argument.
> All middle class children learn to read unless they are severely > mentally handicapped. End of story. RH
That is assertion, not argument.
Dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read, just that you have difficulty reading that would not be expected given your general intelligence, so your argument is based on a misconception. There are plenty of middle class people that have such difficulty reading (I even know a few dyslexic academics). If you think this doesn't happen, it is just an indication that you should get out more.
> >Note that dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read or write, just > >varying difficulties in reading and writing that you would not expect > >given the level of spoken language. You can be dyslexic without being > >illiterate.
> >> >. In my experience
> >> Which is?RH
> >RH, you know perfectly well that I am a lecturer in a UK university. > >This means that I have both taught a large number of students and been > >academic advisor to many students over the past decade or so. I think > >I am in a pretty good position to coment on difficulties faced by > >university students.
> Hilarious pomposity. RH
Insult instead of argument as usual. It has been part of my job over a decade or more to help students get the support they need to deal with dyslexia, that puts me in a good position to comment. There is nothing pompous about that. If you didn't like the answer, why ask the question?
What experience/expertise do you have?
> >> >, dyslexic students are not unknown
> >> How do you define a dyslexic? RH
> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms > >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may > >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well > >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in > >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal > >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working > >definition as any.
> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
> In message <1182675403.446427.186...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
> >> >> A fantasy condition Max.
> >> >RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
> >> >There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
> >> It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of > >> culture. RH
> >You need to learn the difference between assertion and argument. ;o)
> >This is simply rubbish, there is evidence that speech has had an effect > >on the development of brain function and physiology (i.e. there have > >been physical adaptations). There is no evidence that written language > >has yet had any effect (it is far more likely to have an effect on > >spoken language first). This makes spoken language natural and written > >language unnatural.
> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It is the development of spoken language that has driven the development of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
>> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms >> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may >> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well >> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in >> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal >> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working >> >definition as any.
>> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
>ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has >with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with >poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a >particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is >that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for >educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
>You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
In message <1182939653.944096.122...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >language unnatural.
>> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
> In message <1182938607.379434.93...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin > Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
> >> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms > >> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may > >> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well > >> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in > >> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal > >> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working > >> >definition as any.
> >> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
> >ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has > >with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with > >poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a > >particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is > >that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for > >educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
> >You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
> Status quo.RH
So you have been doing it for some time then? LOL!
Do you not find it amusing that you replied "Hasn't got a clue" when I basically echoed one of your own sources?
> In message <1182939653.944096.122...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
> >> >language unnatural.
> >> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
> >No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a > >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It > >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development > >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such > >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around > >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the > >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken > >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
> Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:30:25 -0700, Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
Another point. The "dyslexic one" seems to be able to operate live linux systems without any trouble. I use live cd's for data disposal this means that I don't see the data and I have to use a command line interface, so my kids don't mind booting a live distro and seeing what happen next.
I caught (noticed) my 14 year old printing out back issues of the freak brothers, so I gave him a big old Oki laser with about 2 years worth of toner left and told him to work away. He had breached the school firewall and downloaded the freak bros to his keyring storage thingy and went forth to publish underground copies of the underground mag.
When I was 14 I had a bull terrier and a couple of ferrets and a licence to keep British birds (finches)..........I'm not old .......Honest
>> >> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms >> >> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may >> >> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well >> >> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in >> >> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal >> >> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working >> >> >definition as any.
>> >> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
>> >ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has >> >with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with >> >poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a >> >particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is >> >that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for >> >educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
>> >You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
>> Status quo.RH
>So you have been doing it for some time then? LOL!
>Do you not find it amusing that you replied "Hasn't got a clue" when I >basically echoed one of your own sources?
>On 27 Jun, 17:53, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> In message <1182939653.944096.122...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >> >language unnatural.
>> >> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>> >No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a >> >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It >> >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development >> >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such >> >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around >> >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the >> >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken >> >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
>> Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
>So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
In message <1182706225.750728.255...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>I presume from what you say he >> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have >> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of >> line with the others. RH
>Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it >discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of >their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia?
Sigh. Very low IQ question. The test questions can be give orally. How do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed? Also, the visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
>As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia >and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some >capacity.
>Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or irritating clever.
You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor amongst a number., including personality type. For example, an IQ of 150 will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take a maths degree. You get the idea?
Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to commit crime, be unemployed etc.
At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
In message <whigi.287$iq2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Sid <sidneysn...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>> Like rember for remember. >>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion. >> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only >> semi-literate.
> >> >> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
> >> >No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a > >> >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It > >> >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development > >> >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such > >> >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around > >> >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the > >> >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken > >> >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
> >> Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
> >So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
> Sigh. What ever has evolved is by definition natural. RH
On 28 Jun, 07:26, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1182706225.750728.255...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Gavin > Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
> >>I presume from what you say he > >> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have > >> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of > >> line with the others. RH
> >Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it > >discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of > >their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia?
> Sigh. Very low IQ question.
No, it is an ignorant question (I have never taken an IQ test and can't find any really useful information on the nature of the test on- line), so I am asking someone who I think may know.
> The test questions can be give orally. How > do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed? > Also, the > visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
How do they compensate for the differences in the mode of the test (I believe it is a time test, so this would matter).
> >As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia > >and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some > >capacity.
> >Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to > >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views > >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
> I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the > score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be > defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or > irritating clever.
Robert, I didn't ask what your IQ was, I asked if you had taken one (I even gave the reason, which you have also ignored). Why do you have such difficulty answering a simple and direct question?
> You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the > individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake > a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor > amongst a number., including personality type.
Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
> For example, an IQ of 150 > will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will > not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take > a maths degree. You get the idea?
Having done well at A level maths would be a far better guide, so why bother with IQ?
> Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the > IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to > commit crime, be unemployed etc.
That is quite likely to be true, but difficult to be sure which is the cause and which the effect.
> At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social > outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH
Back to the bell curve again? I have yet to see a study that properly accounts for socio-economic environment when drawing such concusions. The Bell Curve certainly isn't it and you know it.
On 28 Jun, 07:28, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <whigi.287$iq2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Sid > <sidneysn...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>>> Like rember for remember. > >>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion. > >> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only > >> semi-literate.
> >Duh. Dyslexia wasn't invented in those days !
> >Sid
> Quite. RH
The name hadn't been invented, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have it.
> In message <1182965681.386551.30...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin > Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
> >> >> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms > >> >> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may > >> >> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well > >> >> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in > >> >> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal > >> >> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working > >> >> >definition as any.
> >> >> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
> >> >ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has > >> >with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with > >> >poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a > >> >particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is > >> >that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for > >> >educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
> >> >You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
> >> Status quo.RH
> >So you have been doing it for some time then? LOL!
> >Do you not find it amusing that you replied "Hasn't got a clue" when I > >basically echoed one of your own sources?
