auditory dyslexia

Leslie said:
My oldest (not the apraxic) was 'diagnosed' by the school he was in, and the school board psychiatrist as 'retarded' and suffering from ADD, and, magically, also ADHD. This was contrary to what my own paediatrician said. A switch of schools, and low and behold, he's doing marvellously and has since been actually tested, and found to be gifted (BORED OUT OF HIS TREE). He was never medicated. Now he's in a school with only 120 children total. Spectacular.
Click to expand...

To me, therein lies a huge part of the difference. You took the time to become actively involved in your child's circumstances. Many do not. I do NOT refer to our newfound contributor with that remark.

Too many parents take the word of a principal or a school doc or the cafeteria line worker or whoever as gospel, go along with whatever they recommend, and doom the kid right then and there. It's too easy not to.

I subscribe to the aggressive parenting line of thinking. Parent aggressively, actively, adamantly. Parent as though your child's future depended on it. Primarily because it does. Be involved at the school. Know the teachers. Investigate the curriculum being taught. Select doctors and other professionals carefully, and switch them as needed. Let the coaches coach and the nurses nurse and the teachers teach, but know what each is doing and how. Set the rules with your child, and enforce them every time even if it's inconvenient and your head is splitting and your boss yelled at you today and that season finale of Survivor: Oakland is on. Praise the accomplishments, correct the misbehavior, and celebrate the rest. Know that there is a disorder for everything these days, and any day now some nut will concoct a new treatment program for dandruff that unless you address it with your child is designed to make you feel like a worm for letting dandruff go untreated. Be your child's parent before their friend, even when it's not fun.

Our parents called it raising kids. It seems to be endangered. Shame on us.
 
Michelle_InMi said:
Will you please consider editing your original post (removing names) so that this thread does not show up under searches?
Click to expand...

The names(s) are/were in print in a major US newspaper. They're already public use. What difference does it make?
 
Then don't go to a major newspaper & have your story printed for everybody to see
 
Leslie, as a professional in the field of journalism who has to deal with this exact sort of thing, I think you erred in editing out the names. Here's someone we don't know, who is or is not who she claims to be, asking to have the newsworthy story edited just because she doesn't like what's in it. This is exactly the same thing that I see when someone calls and complains because his or her son was in the Red Light Roundup because he got busted for DUI and was taken to jail.
 
Inkara1 said:
Leslie, as a professional in the field of journalism who has to deal with this exact sort of thing, I think you erred in editing out the names. Here's someone we don't know, who is or is not who she claims to be, asking to have the newsworthy story edited just because she doesn't like what's in it. This is exactly the same thing that I see when someone calls and complains because his or her son was in the Red Light Roundup because he got busted for DUI and was taken to jail.
Click to expand...


Well if Les's intention was to protect the child ,I do believe she erred
When I googled my daughter's name, this thread came up.
Click to expand...


No where in that article did the childs first and last name appear together ,Its impossible that searching the name brought up this thread .I needed to search +first +last before it brought up the OTC thread and even then it was in the middle of the 2nd page of search results. It seems to poster was more interested in protecting her own interests than those of her daughters (assuming it was the mom who posted here at all.
 
in fact try a search of the posters username and the daughters name ,seems someone freely posts the daughters name (pics?) NETWIDE.
 
Inkara1 said:
Leslie, as a professional in the field of journalism who has to deal with this exact sort of thing, I think you erred in editing out the names. Here's someone we don't know, who is or is not who she claims to be, asking to have the newsworthy story edited just because she doesn't like what's in it. This is exactly the same thing that I see when someone calls and complains because his or her son was in the Red Light Roundup because he got busted for DUI and was taken to jail.
Click to expand...
As I'm not a professional in journalism, nor is this website purported to be journalism nor even the slightest bit factual or informative in any mien, I do believe that I don't give a shit about journalism ethics in this situation.

The newsworthy story was not changed in the slightest, only the names were removed. The names are still linked to in the first post. They're just not *here*.

This is exactly the same thing that I see when someone calls and complains because his or her son was in the Red Light Roundup because he got busted for DUI and was taken to jail
Click to expand...
No, it's not exactly like that.

It's exactly as if someone went and wrote "Aaron tells silly jokes and I think it's ridiculous" on a piece of paper in the grocery store bulletin board and you went and asked the manager if he could take it down for you.
 
By your logic, why didn't you remove ALL the names in the quoted material in this thread? After all, just because the other quoted people, or their relatives, have not asked us to remove their names yet doesn't mean they won't. And any time we post a "stupid criminals" story, we'll make sure names don't show up in the quoted material then, either. We'll also all not post "cute" moments that our own children do, because it might be embarrassing a year from now.

And my analogy is a lot closer than yours; for one thing, mine includes the parent-child relationship, while yours, instead of dealing with material quoted in a reputable news source about a child that the parent might not like, deals with an opinion about me, not my child, with no sources to back it up.

It's obvious that this woman just doesn't want a Google search to bring up her daughter's name unless it's flattering.

Also, keep in mind that she won't be able to stop people from finding the article anyway. All someone would have to do is head to the local university library, grab a computer and hit up Lexis/Nexis. They won't check student ID for that if universities there are anything like the one I attended.
 
IF they do, I will. And in the meantime, why don't we all get bent out of shape and entirely irrational and go to extremes?

I disagree about the analogy entirely, but am not going to argue. You can win. :)

As this obviously matters a great deal to you as a journalist, perhaps you should go over my head and deal with the FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY, NOT A NEWS SITE site owner.

Kthxbye.
 
Leslie said:
IF they do, I will. And in the meantime, why don't we all get bent out of shape and entirely irrational and go to extremes?
Click to expand...
...and I suppose you've NEVER, EVER IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE done that to make a point.

I disagree about the analogy entirely, but am not going to argue. You can win. :)
Click to expand...
The old "you always have to be right" ploy. Christina pulled that enough times that I can see it coming in all its forms.

As this obviously matters a great deal to you as a journalist, perhaps you should go over my head and deal with the FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY, NOT A NEWS SITE site owner.
Click to expand...
I'm not your child, although someone reading that statement might wonder otherwise.
 
a courtesy to the person that claims to be the parent
of the doped up child you heartless bastardo
 
Gonz said:
So then, the purpose of editing the post was what, exactly?
Click to expand...


so when a search is done and if the story comes up they get the unbiased news, instead of your biased opinion.
 
paul_valaru said:
so when a search is done and if the story comes up they get the unbiased news, instead of your biased opinion.
Click to expand...

ROFLPIP yeah, like that exists. Found the tooth fairy's castle have you? :rofl:
 
I find it amazing that we can't even show a little common courtesy to a new member.

She may be right, she may be wrong, doesn't really matter. There's no reason to not do the small favor she has asked of us. Frankly, the only reason not to do that would be out of spite.

Not often do we have the chance to actually talk to the subjects of the articles we argue about. I think we would do better to talk to her and get more insight into the situation and maybe see things from another point of view for a little, instead of trying to scare her away with petty bickering.
 
scare her away? she's already gone. she got a thread that she felt was unfavorable towards her edited so that it would be harder to find on a google search. her mission is accomplished.
i do question her motives. why go through all the trouble of digging up a year old thread for the purpose of editing a name out of it.
this has the stink of a legal defensive maneuver. modify potentially negative web postings so it doesnt show up on a search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top