Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What's boards.ie issue with people with a learning disability?.

Options
1…457910

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    bluewolf wrote: »
    How is anyone mocking someone for an impairment if nobody knows he has it and he won't tell them unless he wants to be angry about it

    Because I gather he has been getting mocked for his spelling and that's the impairment. The simple fact they bring it up is the evidence that it doesn't go under the radar like some are claiming.


  • Options
    #183
    JamBur
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭JamBur


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    It doesn't matter if they're dyslexic. If there's a decent amount of evidence that you ought to make allowances for their spelling then yes, presume some sort of issue - dyslexia or simply a poor speller - and refrain from making mean comments, because that's the decent thing to do.

    I make allowances for someone based on their attitude.


  • Options
    #184
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Because I gather he has been getting mocked for his spelling and that's the impairment. The simple fact they bring it up is the evidence that it doesn't go under the radar like some are claiming.

    It's not just his spelling though. Some of his posts are completely illegible and it shouldn't be considered rude, on a message board, to ask for clarification. The phone call thread the op started- only two words were spelt incorrectly- it was his grammar and syntax and overall point that was confusing to read. There is NO way I would assume that person who wrote that post has dyslexia.


  • Options
    #185
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Because I gather he has been getting mocked for his spelling and that's the impairment. The simple fact they bring it up is the evidence that it doesn't go under the radar like some are claiming.

    People bring it up because they are unfamiliar with him and DON'T KNOW he has a learning impairment.

    As soon as he aggressively explains he is dyslexic the issue is immediately dropped. Look back on previous threads and see for yourself.


  • Options
    #186
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    It doesn't matter if they're dyslexic. If there's a decent amount of evidence that you ought to make allowances for their spelling then yes, presume some sort of issue - dyslexia or simply a poor speller - and refrain from making mean comments, because that's the decent thing to do.

    To be fair, he seems to be feeding from the drama.

    "halp, mean paeple"
    "Use spellcheckers/Grammarly, etc"
    "that do be mean, u just be happy i talk at all"

    Horse, water, etc.


  • Options
    #188
    Bebopclown
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Bebopclown


    I thought I read in the forums rules that you where not allowed to attack people for spelling errors due to the fact they may have dyslexia.


  • Options
    #189
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Bebopclown wrote: »
    I thought I read in the forums rules that you where not allowed to attack people for spelling errors due to the fact they may have dyslexia.

    In his last thread he wasn't "attacked" for spelling errors- he was asked to clarify the whole intent of the post as it was illegible.


  • Options
    #190
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.


    I'm dyslexic myself, but I must say, I kinna like flying off the handle now and again


  • Options
    #191
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    JamBur wrote: »
    I make allowances for someone based on their attitude.

    Well OP clearly has a good attitude toward his impairment in real life otherwise he wouldn't be so proud of his accomplishments, so judge him as a man and not as an Boards.ie user, even if his gripe is about Boards.ie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Well OP clearly has a good attitude toward his impairment in real life otherwise he wouldn't be so proud of his accomplishments, so judge him as a man and not as an Boards.ie user, even if his gripe is about Boards.ie.

    He/she can only be judged on their persona here. I've no idea who that person is other than the content of their posts.


  • Options
    #193
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Well OP clearly has a good attitude toward his impairment in real life otherwise he wouldn't be so proud of his accomplishments, so judge him as a man and not as an Boards.ie user, even if his gripe is about Boards.ie.

    Bizarre post. We only know him as a boards user.


  • Options
    #194
    SB_Part2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭SB_Part2


    anna080 wrote: »
    Bizarre post. We only know him as a boards user.

    I agree. And I wouldn't say he has a good attitude at all.


  • Options
    #195
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Having read his first post in the phonecall thread, I would be able to tell straight off the bat that OP has a problem. The dyslexia isn't apparent but an overall issue with English obviously is and as a result I'd be far more sensitive in my response than some posters were.

    Sorry but I can absolutely see why he got defensive, and didn't consider the responses in any way constructive, because some of them weren't. Some of them were, contrary to what you say, quite rude and condescending, nowhere near as polite as you's claim. Nowhere near. It's actually hilarious how you's underplayed it, but not really because it suits your agenda if you pretend the responsive posts read like 'Could you repeat that OP?'

    I'm very much Team OP here I'm afraid. He definitely let his emotions get the better of him, and probably dropped the D bomb too quickly and used it as a stick to beat them with, but the simple fact is that his first post in the phonecall thread was horrendously written and they DID recognise it, but they went about flagging it up in the wrong way, which led us the birth of this thread.


  • Options
    #196
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Having read his first post in the phonecall thread, I would be able to tell straight off the bat that OP has a problem. The dyslexia isn't apparent but an overall issue with English obviously is and as a result I'd be far more sensitive in my response than some posters were.

    Sorry but I can absolutely see why he got defensive, and didn't consider the responses in any way constructive, because some of them weren't. Some of them were, contrary to what you say, quite rude and condescending, nowhere near as polite as you's claim. Nowhere near. It's actually hilarious how you's underplayed it, but not really because it suits your agenda if you pretend the responsive posts read like 'Could you repeat that OP?'

    I'm very much Team OP here I'm afraid. He definitely let his emotions get the better of him, and probably dropped the D bomb too quickly and used it as a stick to beat them with, but the simple fact is that his first post in the phonecall thread was horrendously written and they DID recognise it, but they went about flagging it up in the wrong way, which led us the birth of this thread.

    This is where I disagree totally. It is not possible to tell from one post that someone has a problem.

    In fact just a few months ago on here there was a poster posting absolute rubbish in CAPS all the time which I just ignored because I presumed that they had a problem. They got pulled up on it and were totally capable of typing in a proper way. So sometimes it's pure laziness that someone types a load of crap.


  • Options
    #197
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

    Well?


  • Options
    #198
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    pilly wrote: »
    This is where I disagree totally. It is not possible to tell from one post that someone has a problem.

    In fact just a few months ago on here there was a poster posting absolute rubbish in CAPS all the time which I just ignored because I presumed that they had a problem. They got pulled up on it and were totally capable of typing in a proper way. So sometimes it's pure laziness that someone types a load of crap.

    Yes but this post was in Legal Issues mate, not After Hours. In Legal Issues, I'm assuming he wanted his post to be as well written as possible in order to get the best answer possible, but the fact he was oblivious to how poorly written it was (or simply incapable of improving it) is a huge indicator for me that there's an underlying problem.


  • Options
    #199
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Yes but this post was in Legal Issues mate, not After Hours. In Legal Issues, I'm assuming he wanted his post to be as well written as possible in order to get the best answer possible, but the fact he was oblivious to how poorly written it was (or simply incapable of improving it) is a huge indicator for me that there's an underlying problem.

    But this is contrary to his After Hours posts, your assessment is wrong.


  • Options
    #200
    Spider Web
    Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭Spider Web


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Having read his first post in the phonecall thread, I would be able to tell straight off the bat that OP has a problem. The dyslexia isn't apparent but an overall issue with English obviously is and as a result I'd be far more sensitive in my response than some posters were.

    Sorry but I can absolutely see why he got defensive, and didn't consider the responses in any way constructive, because some of them weren't. Some of them were, contrary to what you say, quite rude and condescending, nowhere near as polite as you's claim. Nowhere near. It's actually hilarious how you's underplayed it, but not really because it suits your agenda if you pretend the responsive posts read like 'Could you repeat that OP?'

    I'm very much Team OP here I'm afraid. He definitely let his emotions get the better of him, and probably dropped the D bomb too quickly and used it as a stick to beat them with, but the simple fact is that his first post in the phonecall thread was horrendously written and they DID recognise it, but they went about flagging it up in the wrong way, which led us the birth of this thread.
    Absolutely. The "People just looked for clarification" stuff is highly dishonest. All people have to do is look at the Legal Issues thread to see how that claim is contradicted.


  • Options
    #201
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »
    But this is contrary to his After Hours posts, your assessment is wrong.

    He overreacted - I acknowledged that - but he is within his rights to feel upset. He just could've handled it better. Then again, writing and conveying his ideas in written form might not be his strong suit, so maybe that held him back. I don't know.

    That's my view, having read the insensitive nature of the responses in the other thread.

    Spider Web knows what's up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Spider Web wrote: »
    Absolutely. The "People just looked for clarification" stuff is highly dishonest. All people have to do is look at the Legal Issues thread to see how that claim is contradicted.

    There are 3 pisstake replies out of 15 on that thread. A majority of replies were either sympathetic, constructive, offering alternatives or seeking clarification from the OP.

    Highly dishonest? No.

    Highly exagerated by you? Yes.


  • Options
    #203
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »
    There are 3 pisstake replies out of 15 on that thread. A majority of replies were either sympathetic, constructive, offering alternatives or seeking clarification from the OP.

    Highly dishonest? No.

    Highly exagerated by you? Yes.

    Sorry but there was 11 responses before he made this thread, and four of those were blatantly in no way helpful.

    So 36% of the responses in a thread on Legal Issues were relating to an obvious problem he has with English. Does that not seem a bit high to you, on a forum which I'm guessing is totally unlike After Hours regarding piss taking and banter etc?


  • Options
    #204
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    He overreacted - I acknowledged that - but he is within his rights to feel upset. He just could've handled it better. Then again, writing and conveying his ideas in written form might not be his strong suit, so maybe that held him back. I don't know.

    That's my view, having read the insensitive nature of the responses in the other thread.

    Spider Web knows what's up.

    People took the piss before he asserted his issue. One poster went ott and got a warning. Others were perfectly fine. Again the op wouldn't face as much challenges if he took advice on board and added it to his sig but he won't, so what can ya do.


  • Options
    #205
    whoopsadoodles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,058 ✭✭✭whoopsadoodles


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Sorry but there was 11 responses before he made this thread, and four of those were blatantly in no way helpful.

    So 36% of the responses in a thread on Legal Issues were relating to an obvious problem he has with English. Does that not seem a bit high to you, on a forum which I'm guessing is totally unlike After Hours regarding piss taking and banter etc?

    Two posts asked him to clarify before he had a meltdown and claimed that boards had a problem with dyslexia.


  • Options
    #206
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    He overreacted - I acknowledged that - but he is within his rights to feel upset. He just could've handled it better. Then again, writing and conveying his ideas in written form might not be his strong suit, so maybe that held him back. I don't know.

    That's my view, having read the insensitive nature of the responses in the other thread.

    Spider Web knows what's up.

    Never mind what Spider Web knows or doesnt know.

    His post in Legal is in a heap, thats fine. He has literacy problems, thats fine. He has a bad attitude, thats fine.

    Posting short incoherent stuff in one thread and lengthy legible stuff in another is contradictory. Is he taking the piss himself? Is he dyslexic or lazy? Is he trolling?

    There was no problem "conveying his ideas in written form" here.

    He was quite rightly requested to clarify himself in Legal, how else are people meant to help him with his issue? By deduction? By assessment? By mind reading?

    If he wants to take offence then thats fine too.

    This crusade to hound people who looked for clarity or some who wound him up is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #207
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    whoopsadoodles wrote: »
    Two posts asked him to clarify before he had a meltdown and claimed that boards had a problem with dyslexia.

    No. One poster asked him to re-write his post, before adding that his keyboard farted (seriously do you not see why this would provoke a defensive repsonse?) and the other was some sort of analysis. Ask yourself whether it's possible that both posters could've been a bit more tactful and if the answer is yes then there's no debate in my view.


  • Options
    #208
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »
    Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

    Well?

    You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that?


  • Options
    #209
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »
    He was quite rightly requested to clarify himself in Legal, how else are people meant to help him with his issue? By deduction? By assessment? By mind reading?.

    If they were interested in answering his question to begin with then they would've sought clarity in a more sensitive, less inflammatory way.

    Then again, you have to be fair and say the two lads didn't know he'd respond in the way he did, but there's no getting away from the fact that they could've been more tactful in their responses, like others were, and that's how we find ourselves here.


  • Options
    #210
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    No. One poster asked him to re-write his post, before adding that his keyboard farted (seriously do you not see why this would provoke a defensive repsonse?) and the other was some sort of analysis. Ask yourself whether it's possible that both posters could've been a bit more tactful and if the answer is yes then there's no debate in my view.

    Ask yourself, is it possible that the OP could have been a bit clearer? If the answer is 'yes', coupled with the evidence put forth by the OP in After Hours, is that he is well capable of producing coherent posts.

    There is no debate here. The OP threw some words together that didnt make sense....but somehow its everyone elses fault.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    If they were interested in answering his question to begin with then they would've sought clarity in a more sensitive, less inflammatory way.

    Your time has value.

    If you ask of anothers time and don't bother to even make your request legible, then sorry, but pisstaking is fair game.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement