Disqus - Latest Comments for brotherjohna

Re: US microsoft-365

brotherjohna — Mon, 05 Jun 2023 16:50:09 -0000

VERY sporadic in Raleigh, NC, USA

Re: Avengers: Endgame Timeline Explained: No Plot-Holes

brotherjohna — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:15:06 -0000

Yes, that is also Hulk Zero. Then (at the latest) when to the Time Stone is removed, the timeline splits and he becomes Hulk One. And he will have a different future... unless the timeline is restored by Cap returning the stone to the Ancient One right when/just after Hulk took it.

Just like I think Cap Zero can go back to his own timeline and live in secret and grow old with Peggy while younger Cap Zero is on ice and later awakened to fight with the Avengers, I think Hulk Zero can be fighting in the streets while older Hulk Zero is up on a roof negotiating with the Ancient One. I think the timeline can remain intact with two versions of yourself from the same timeline simply existing within it. I know it's all rather timey-wimey/hand-wavey, but my opinion is it's a matter of how much you affect events as to whether a full-fledged new timeline is created. If you keep your effect on the timeline at bare minimum, maybe it's still the same timeline. Who's to say in the imaginary, created world of time travel where the line is drawn where a new timeline is actually created. Only the AO seems to define one definite event that will split it: when a stone is removed from that timeline and taken out of it. But maybe timelines are very durable. Just popping in and out of them doesn't really create a new one.

We know from events in the movie that a significant change would splinter off a new timeline... a stone taken, I'd say clearly letting Loki get loose, or having Thanos get news of the future from Nebula. But maybe Bruce could enter his own reality, even potentially meet himself (if that were a part of his history, which it wasn't in the MCU... at least that we were shown :)). When Cap fights himself, though, I think that's already in a splintered timeline, because Loki got loose with the space stone.

I can also see the argument that, yeah, maybe when Bruce (or any of the Avengers) simply appears "pops in" to an earlier time in his own timeline, a new timeline starts, and that's Hulk One down in the streets. However, events haven't changed so much that that timeline is perceptibly different. But regardless of exactly when it splits, the movie's rules say that if a stone is returned to when/where it was taken, the timeline would be restored. So Cap brings it back to the AO, maybe says "Hi!" to Bruce-Hulk in passing as he's leaving :) , and Hulk One fighting down in the streets -- who momentarily had a different future in front of him -- keeps moving along in the primary Timeline Zero. All the more reason to return the stones.

Re: Avengers: Endgame Timeline Explained: No Plot-Holes

brotherjohna — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 22:15:44 -0000

Re: Avengers: Endgame Timeline Explained: No Plot-Holes

brotherjohna — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:57:46 -0000

Presumably, some of these timelines should merge back in with the original one, right? They don't all go one indefinitely? Otherwise, Steve wouldn't have to return the stones. Unless the Ancient One was wrong, and the timelines don't split and then merge again when a stone is taken/returned, but they split and simply get their stone back and can continue with minimal disruption?

Or maybe it's all semantics any given resident of the MCU's philosophical approach to time travel. For all practical purposes for a person living in it, a timeline is the same within the reasonable future if there are minimal changes. Maybe that's where she was coming from.

I'd say if any of the above merge back with the primary, it would be the ones where
1) Roadie takes (and Cap returns) the Power Stone to Morag in 2014.

2) Cap & Tony take (& Cap returns) the stone (& Pym particles) from 1970.

3) Thor & Rocket take (Cap returns) the Aether from Jane.

4) Nat dies/Clint takes (Cap returns) the Soul Stone to Vormir. Don't ask how he does the latter; movie magic/years of thread-fodder!

Now, thinking as I write; THIS IS WHERE THINGS GET TRICKY:

Morag: There still HAS to be a timeline where Cap returns the Power Stone, Peter gets it, GoG form, Thanos stalks them, and continues onto the snap. BUT THERE ALSO HAS TO BE ANOTHER timeline split on 2014 Morag that DOESN'T get merged; the one where Thanos gets the future info and then travels to the future. It depends on how/when the second split happened as to whether one could re-set the original timeline and leave that one going. Not sure how Cap will/did manage that. Maybe he got lucky with timing? But again, movie magic, things for us to talk about forever probably!

New York 2012: Okay, we know all four of them (Cap, Tony, Hulk, Scott) went to the same place & time in their timeline. But they lost the Space Stone to Loki in this timeline, so wouldn't the timeline have split right there? Not just wherever Loki went, but in this NY, on this earth, in 2012. They can't get the Space Stone anymore from here, but Hulk & Antman return with the Time Stone & Scepter (Mind Stone). When Cap returns these two to this time, IS the timeline REALLY restored? Or is he returning them to a splinter timeline because Loki's actions splintered it? Or does he somehow return them all to NY in 2012 while (carefully and quietly) preventing Loki from taking the Space Stone in the first place? But no, then he wouldn't have it to bring back to 1970, where it's also needed so all the earlier events in the timeline can play out.

MAAYYYBEEE :) He practices all his best stealth moves before going, picks Scott's cat-burglar brains, and pops into 2012 NY right as Scott's about to snag the stone, and THENNN in the commotion of the "heart attack":
- waits until the briefcase slides near Loki (the 2012 stone's still in there, remember?)
- waits for Loki to grab it
- knocks Loki out, puts the stone back in the case
- slinks into the background where he can go back to 1970 and return the stone he brought from the future back to SHIELD and Stark

In this scenario, there are THREE Caps in the building at the time, and TWO Space Stones! But Cap may be able to restore the Loki timeline to the primary, so the return of the other two stones there (before or after this by him) would re-set it completely! Meanwhile, all Loki knows is he tried to re-take the stone and Captain America knocked him out. (EDIT: Or maybe all he has to do is kick it away from Loki)

I know I'm overthinking this. My brain hurts! :D

Re: Avengers: Endgame Timeline Explained: No Plot-Holes

brotherjohna — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:15:50 -0000

Re: Avengers: Endgame Timeline Explained: No Plot-Holes

brotherjohna — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:33:06 -0000

Love it! I've been thinking about sketching one of these of my own. I'd probably have to see the movie 2 or 3 more times though! I agree with these timelines pretty much completely (? talk to me in a few days :D) . For people claiming there was only one timeline, it's simply impossible based on events of the film (the biggest one being Thanos Mk. II jumping ahead without eliminating the snap from ever having happened).

The movie's time-travel "rules" are basically:
- Bruce: You can't change your own past; so no grandfather paradoxes. Yeah, but that just means YOUR timeline is always the same, it will always be what events in your timeline have made & will make it.
- Ancient One: The 6 Infinity Stones help keep the core timeline in place; but if any are removed, they'll create splinter timelines, and those could be disastrous for the splinter timeline without the infinity stone. BUT she doesn't say other events couldn't also affect these timelines. She's just focused on the obvious: we NEED the Time Stone to protect us from Dormammu, etc. She wants to conserve HER timeline.
- Bruce (and he's really only guessing here): maybe returning the stones back to when/where they were taken will keep the primary timeline intact. HOWEVER, no one says other events couldn't change those timelines. He's begging her out of desperation, hoping they can pull it off without a hitch. But if something goes wrong (as clearly does with Loki, & Nebula's shared interface), other timelines would be much harder to re-set, if at all possible. For his strategy to work and keep the primary timeline intact, the characters would have to affect VERY little when both talking and returning the stones. Not likely; especially given they returned to such eventful, hectic moments to get them! (understandable for movie-making fun, but not really the smartest choices!)

So when people claim "the movie says" there's only one timeline, that's not really the case. They clearly state multiple timelines can exist, and they just say (in a kind of hopeful, guessing way) that they could be returned to one if the stones were returned as they were taken.

While Cap returning the stones from whence they came may correct most of the timelines, It can't correct Loki stealing the Tesseract or Thanos Mk. II coming to the future. My assumption is Loki is gonna be in the alternate timeline in his Disney+ series, and never come back to this timeline to mess with it. That one's easy. As for Thanos, that one's more difficult. Let's say Cap drops the Power Stone back in the Vault just after War Machine and Nebula take it. No one's the wiser. Timeline restored, right? But how does that prevent Nebula Mk. II from getting the internet communique from Nebula? Cap hasn't corrected the timeline simply by returning the stone! But okay, we need that timeline to happen for Thanos Mk. II to come into the future and have the final battle in 2023. But we also need Thanos Mk I and GoG to happen so the snap and the primary timeline will continue.

MAYBE when Cap returns the stone, it creates a "reverse splinter" BACK to the main timeline, continuing onto GoG, etc And the Thanos/Nebula Mk. II timeline already split off, so it also continues? I don't know, I'm just thinking outloud. My head hurts! :D

As for how he gets the Soul Stone back to his ol' buddy RS, who knows! But that's offscreen; movie magic (though they may explain it one day).

FTR, I think it's just as possible that Cap could have either returned to the past in a different timeline and married & grew old with Peggy (easier) OR returned to his own past and lived as a 2nd Cap alongside Capsicle, in secret (harder, but more fun to imagine). If he did the latter, I can see him not completely laying low no matter what threats may emerge, because none are likely to be bigger than what he knows Thanos will bring in a few decades, and he doesn't want to mess that up! Of course, this is taking an awfully big chance, putting his entire timeline at risk just to be with Peggy. So he probably went to her in a different timeline.

Re: SpaceX Apparently Has A Huge Upcoming Announcement For Us

brotherjohna — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 19:37:49 -0000

Exactly what I thought when I read it!

Re: Doctor Who season 9 premiere review: Fixing the future

brotherjohna — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:22:43 -0000

Clara and Missy didn't get exterminated. Where was the classic skeleton outline? And the color was wrong. Just like when she "got/didn't get" vaporized by Danny CyberPink last series, Missy used a teleport to get out of this one, too. Mark my words.

The Doctor will be forced to choose whether or not to be commit genocide/kill young Davros to save his friends. But it will be a false choice, as they're really not dead. I wouldn't be surprised if Missy even set the whole thing up to toy with him... to show the universe that he's really no different than her.

Re: Study of extinct Australian primate: These roos were 'made' for walking | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour

brotherjohna — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:02:32 -0000

"Primate"? "Primate"?!? Really, PBS? Sigh, what's happened to science?

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:10:36 -0000

I guess we're down to semantics when the OP asked for research "affirming" a link. Yes, I could see you saying this paper gives some historical and case-based evidence "affirming" a correlation, at least. I just viewed the question, and response, in a more scientific pub light as "affirming" meeting a higher criteria. I myself (from what I have read) have seen no strong evidence of a causal link between ASD and criminal acts, and in fact I think so far evidence leans towards the lack of one (but as you say, it's early, and it's a discussion worth having in the literature). But the way the media have jumped on that despite evidence to the contrary (or no real evidence, we don't really have his diagnosis or diagnoses) is unforgiveable.

I think we agree opn more than we disagree, looking at your other posts. And I completely agree that "the issue here is mental Illness/disorders and gun violence", just that here, ASD may or may not even be a component of it. There needs to be less stigma and increased availability and knowledge of mental health care.

Sorry if I got snarky with the "wanna try again" comment!

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:46:36 -0000

Oh man, I just can't get off this thread, there is so much astounding ignorance and prejudice here. Mr. Yamakazi, you are a bigot. My son is textbook Aspie, and to say he "just acts out because growing up is too hard"... ooohh, man, I'll just put it very nicely and say that I'm strongly insulted.

I have spent YEARS (not 5 or 15 minutes) in the presence of BOTH a classically autistic kid (my nephew) and an Aspie (my son). They BOTH have serious issues that make it hard for both families to know if they will ever be able to function independently as adults. They also share a GREAT deal of the very same, identical issues: sensitivity to sensory stimulation, severe anxiety, uncontrollable meltdowns, inordinate fixation on specific interests (to the exclusion of the oputside world)... I could go on and on. There are many reasons why in the upcoming DSM-V, Asperger's is being removed (in name only) and being grouped in other forms of autism... because they are the same thing! Just differing presentations of autism.

The only thing that gives kids with Asperger's a leg up over more classically autistic kids is that they typically have a higher intellectual capacity. This allows them to use their intellect to adapt, somewhat (usually by rote memorization of things such as proper social behavior, things that we all pick up intuitively). But all of their other deficiencies (social, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, etc) are the same, and it amounts to MUCH more than "acting out because growing up is too hard". If that's the case, then my son was "acting out because growing up is too hard" when he was 1 year... no, make that a few weeks... old.

You say "Even among the psychologists who actually acknowledge all that and accept it, Aspergers is the faux-autism that's hardly taken seriously." Not ones who are educated or reputable. News flash: there are bad doctors. Even today, some doctors are still uneducated about Asperger's (which was defined only inthe 1970s), and even autism. But psychiatrists and psychologists worth their salt are very familiar with all forms of autism, including Asperger's. Thus, it's re-definition in the new DSM-V. If your doctor hardly takes ANY medical issue seriously (another newsflash: they do this all the time), then you need to find another doctor.

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:24:59 -0000

I can't help but reply again; your comments, throughout this thread (but especially here), are simply absurd. First, news articles don't prove anything, either way. Second, a normal kid gunning down 20+ kids with Asperger's is NOT the way to prove the point that kids with ASD are subject to more harm to them than harming others. That is rididiculous to the point of being laughable. You are talking about one case, where the perpetrator "supposedly" had Asperger's, and "supposedly" had other conditions, and who knows what else was going on in his head (truth is, none of us knows WTF his diagnosis was, or what led him to do this). One case (which means nothing scientifically BTW). One where we don't know anything about the cause or why he did it. Versus a body of research that shows kids with ASD are bullied more than their peers -- which is what the person above is talking about. A neurotypical kid gunning down 20+ Aspies has nothing to do with anything, and if you think so, then your powers of logic are sorely lacking.

There is simply not enough evidence, or cases, to show whether more neurotypical or ASD people are responsible for going in anywhere and gunning down multiple people (any kind of people), or even one person. Your suggestion is ludicrous and completely irrelevant.

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:09:44 -0000

That is a review article with a few case reports included within. Any reputable scientist, including these authors, would tell you that neither of these two types of publications/reports amounts to "proof" of anything. They are merely indicators of directions for future research.

The authors discuss much about comorbid psychiatric conditions (such as bipolar, schizophrenia, depression) as possible causes of the correlated criminal behavior. This paper is all about correlation, not causation (and, old chestnut, "correlation does not prove causation", as always, applies). And the correlation is not even from their research, but a review of others' (not all of which show the same correlation). They even state near the end that the "preliminary" correlation they see in (some) of the literature would require "more comprehensive studies to confirm" a correlation... much less to "prove" any causation (ie, elucidation of specific conditions that may be directly responsible for any increased incidence of criminal behavior). We are far from doing that at this point.

There is much better evidence that conditions such as bipolar and schizophrenia come with increased causative risk of criminal behavior. Maybe that's because these conditions have been known and investigated for longer, but maybe it's also because they DO come with a greater risk of leading to criminal behavior. Lanza probably had a slew of mental health and other issues (and as someone wisely posted above, we really don't know WHAT he had). And while a kid who's autistic may have a higher risk of being bipolar, we would treat that on a case-by-case basis. If it's a bipolar kid, we'd treat him as such. If ADHD and autistic, likewise. But we don't lock up anyone unless they are a clear and immediate risk to themselves or others, or after they do something horrendous. Just like neurotypical citizens.

So anyway, this paper does nothing to prove a causative link between ASD and criminal behavior. I read and review these papers for a living. Wanna try again?

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:53:32 -0000

You say "there isn't any proof that there *isn't* a connection between violence and autism." and complain that "A lot of these articles consist of quoting or or two of the very same professors, or fathers who say "but my 11 year old son isn't like that"". Yet you then jump to using the (one) Newtown case as evidence to the contrary.

You can't poo-poo the use of individual cases from parents as evidence against a link between autism and violence and then use another individual case (however horrid) as evidence for a link between autism and violence. And whether you define it as "quoting one or two of the same professors", at least that's peer-reviewed scientific research, not "this is one of those cases!" (something you just said holds no water when parents do it). Ask any clinician what a case report means as far as "proof" of anything.

Then you say: "It's not like it's going to turn out that if there *is* a connection, the order will go out for all Aspies to be arrested or tidal waves of hatred will be unleashed." Yet many here are arguing that such children should be institutionalized! Even without such proof of a connection! There is a "tidal wave of hatred" right here in this thread.

While I don't think you have gone that far, and I agree with some of what you post, even you imply kids with autism should be institutionalized. You say "that parents cannot be required to be heros, and that institutions will provide safer and better care." I am a hero to my autistic son, and it is hard. But ALL parents are required to be heroes to their children. Poor families, single parents, kids or parents with ANY medical issue, etc, etc. And while 1 in 88 are autistic, MUCH higher percentages have drug problems, family issues, and a slew of other situations (inherent to them or to their environment) which make them more likely to commit violent acts. But we don't lock them up or institutionalize them UNLESS they commit some criminal act. Yet you argue that we should lock up autistic kids in (humane, new-improved; and somehow incredibly well-funded) mental institutions BEFORE they commit some horrendous act. That would be something to at least discuss if there WERE strong and clear scientific evidence showing an increased risk of violence with autism compared to without (it would still be horribly unjust, but at least then you'd have a scientific point to make). But there isn't. Newtown does not make it so, just as me saying "my son could never do that" (he couldn't) doesn't make it not so.

The first example above, the heart-wrenching story of the woman with the Aspie son who knocked out all the windows with a shovel, is probably one of the more extreme cases you'll ever hear... and by that I mean of a behavior based SOLELY on the kid's autism. And that kid was having a reaction to a medicine, apparently. Even though someone may get hurt by an autistic kid (usually a family member, and usually something like unpremeditated battery), that is a far cry from a premeditated attack with weapons on a school. The autistic brain, and the meltdowns, simply don't work that way. Lanza had a slew of issues, medical and otherwise, not just Asperger's (which is the whole point of the article). Many millions of families every year experience some sort of violence in the household, and if it ever goes too far, the authorities are called in. If an autistic kid has a violent enough outburst, the authorities would be called in, as with any other domestic abuse incident. He/she could be arrested, but certainly, medical intervention would be warranted as well. That could lead up to time in an institution, but it is not the first resort, and certainly not before an incident happens!

Believe you me, I can identify with that woman. Nothing has gotten quite that bad, and hopefully won't ever, in my household. But my ex and my daughter are sometimes afraid that my son will attack them again. He has gone at them both, hitting, pinching, kickling, biting, etc. on more than one occassion (and me, too, but I am, thankfully, physically more able to deal with it; I serve as his primary caregiver largely because of that).

My son spent a week in a psych ward when he was 7 because he flipped out at the psychiatrist. They observed him, did a bunch of tests, and we changed his meds. He improved and was better for years. He has recently become more prone to tantrums/outbursts again, and we have expanded his therapy and again changed his meds. We are taking every medical approach that there is. And he's doing better. Institutionaluization would only be an option if we could not control him at all, and if he was an immediate threat to himself or others. He is not. He is the sweetest, most loving boy in the world 99.99% of the time, and when he loses it, he quickly recovers, and regrets it. And with therapy, maturation, and medication, he is getting better and better at recognizing and controlling his outbursts.

THAT is the solution to the mental-health aspect of this problem, not knee-jerk institutionalization. It worries me that so many here propose that. Besides, if increased attention to, and funding of, mental health issues is the solution, it is expensive to the point of being completely impractical to set up enough institutions to adequately and humanely treat such large numbers of patients. Nor in fact is such a solution considered the most effective. It would be MUCH cheaper, AND more effective, to increase availability to insurance and other options so that all families with such issues can have access to adequate mental health care (some are not as lucky as my family), and obtain treatment in the home, and/or on an outpatient basis.

In addition, we have to work to remove the stigma of mental health so that families will indeed seek this care when available. This discussion thread proves that there is still plenty of misinformation, and stigma, associated with mental health which directly prevents many families from dealing with these issues.

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:23:02 -0000

I will try to make this my last reply to you because you clearly know very little about these issues, still promote institutionalization as the only solution (all evidence to the contrary), and for some reason want to make this about gun control, too (?).

You have clearly demonstrated that you have no clue about what autism is, nor about mental illness in general; how to treat it, what threat it poses to other kids in school (hint, little to none; research -- you know, science? -- DOES show that kids with autism are more likely to be harmed by those without than vice versa).

NO person EVER "went off on a violent murder spree" as "some kind of social commentary" because of autism. Not one. EVER. Sociopaths? Paranoid schizophrenics? Maybe. Might autism have been part of a much more complicated diagnosis of a person with many more problems (like this Lanza guy)? Possibly. More severe forms of mental illness, and more severe cases, are dealt with on a case-by-case basis as problems become evident. What about someone with just a bad upbringing, a grugde, extreme (left OR right) political opinions, or just an a**hole criminal... but has and will never have a mental illness diagnosis? THAT's a more dangerous person by far than a teenager with autism, and there are many more of them (see just about 99.99% of the murder cases).

Hell, let's just lock up EVERYBODY who looks at us wrong! There's probably a greater correlation between that and violent crime than between autism and violent crime (which is "none").

That you lump all people with any mental health diagnosis as "crazies" shows you are 1) ignorant and 2) prejudiced. Not too long ago, many American citizens argued that all black people should be separated, for the safety of the rest of us. They were ignorant and prejudiced, too.

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:32:17 -0000

Oh, and that's not punishing them? Locking them away. The same way we punish convicts. And we all know how great institutionalization works; heck, even for children with ASD. My 12-year-old autistic son, prone to inexplicable violent outbursts, would benefit GREATLY from being locked away from the world, his family, and everything he loves; as would ANYONE with ASD! And we all know how many caring, incredibly well-funded mental institutions there are out there; and I'm sure you'd be willing to donate a few hundred billion extra in taxes to expand the system. (sarcasm spigot off)

Research is clear that institutionalization does not help, and can in fact hurt. There are many other, more suitable options, and such a harsh measure is reserved for only the most extreme cases where there is clear and immediate danger to the person or others. But lets lock'em all up instead! (okay, I said I turned the sarcasm off)

My son is in the process of starting in-home regular therapy, and has always seen a psychiatrist, psychologist, and other specialists. His outbursts are NOT "inexplicable". He is autistic. He gets treatment. And most kids with autism (or other mental conditions), generally learn to control their behavior by the time they are adults. And again.... no link with criminal activity; NO greater incidence with autism.

The vast majority of assaults and murders in this country are committed by neurotypical people who are simply assholes. We have no way of being "relatively certain" ANYONE "can function in society without inexplicably becoming violent". We lock them up AFTER they commit a crime. But you suggest that we should lock up all mentally ill people until we can be "relatively certain" they won't commit a crime in the future?

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:05:52 -0000

Oh, and when you questioned the statement "None of autism or aspergers characteristics / symptoms have anything to do with violence like this." you ignored the last two words. No one who is educated about autism denies that people with ASD may be more prone to "violent, unpredictable, unprovoked 'meltdowns' ". But there is no connection to "violence LIKE THIS". If you knew an autistic person well, you would see this difference very clearly.

There is also no increased incidence of criminal behavior of any kind, violent or otherwise. An autistic meltdown can be scary, but is very unlike this type of crime, and rarely results in a criminal act. Parents and teachers (usually) know how to deal with it. I am much more afraid of the (neurotypical) yahoo who has a gun and a temper, and those people are probably responsible for many times the number of criminal acts than people with ASD.

Re: Adam Lanza, Asperger's, and the Media Narrative on Autism and the Mentally Ill

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:54:43 -0000

Schmoe Jones said: "If a kid is prone to acting out violently without provocation, that child should not be placed in a classroom with normal kids. That child should be confined to a mental institution or prison.""
Nothing in between? REALLY? My son has Asperger's and is "prone to acting out violently without provocation". Rarely. And he is the sweetest boy in the world. He is in an ASD class as his "home base" but goes to all mainstream classes, with the help of a teaching assistant to keep him focused and on-task. If he has or looks like he is approaching a meltdown, he is pulled out and given space to chill.

He never wants to do this and can't control it, and calms down quickly when it passes. But he has never hit or hurt another kid in school. He has hit teachers, and there have been consequences (suspension, twice), but they roll with it; it's their job to deal with special needs kids.

Now, we live in a great school district; all schools aren't this well-equipped and educated to deal with special needs (although they should be).
But "a mental institution or prison"?

What century do you live in, and can I borrow your time machine?

Re: Dangerous Minds | Smokin’ set by Elvis Costello and The Attractions from 1978

brotherjohna — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:52:34 -0000

When I first scrolled down on the graphic, I viewed it as the Hulk turning into Elvis. Even better, I think.

Re: Gargantuan NOAH 'Ark' Proposed to New Orleans with Straight Face

brotherjohna — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:38:40 -0000

So what happens when the next Katrina hits? I would venture to say that the 20,000 who "live" in this structure wouldn't hang around. They'd probably jet off to Fiji for an impromptu getaway. Do you think the several thousand who could not or would not leave would be welcome in "NOAH"? Yeah, right. Plus, it would do WONDERS for the "old world" feel of the quarter, don't you think? (heavy sarcasm intended).
Why do people get paid to waste their time on stuff like this?