[amphibian]

Defiance, look into any speech pathology programs around. They LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have kids like your sons be involved in their teaching programs. I have a good friend of mine whose son just can't talk - he can understand things and do things, but he can't talk and it's been holding him back in kindergarten already. He got into a speech pathology training program and now they think he'll be approaching normal within the year. It's still possibly going to cost you something, but it won't be as wallet-torchingly expensive as having a full out professional do so.

Actually, if you can get a re-do on an opinion elsewhere, that'd be really good. Or even talk to the professors at the nearest speech pathology program. They'll have a ton of experience, be free to talk to and maybe more sympathetic.

I wish you and your family the best of luck.

Actually, I'm a former IEP kid myself. 90 to 95% deaf, 9+ years of speech therapy and a lot of time with a speech pathologist. My parents had to go through an enormous amount of shit and bureaucratic shit to get me that help and it worked. Don't accept no for an answer here and go back to the school system. There may be laws mandating that they HAVE to get your son the help he needs and if you couch things in the term of "Do you want a failing kid on your hands or do you want a successful kid? Because this is your chance to help us make our son the best person he can be.", administrators and program-runners can be quite helpful.

[Tiste Simeon]

Corporate greed: "Jayne Hats" crackdown by FOX lawyers which is rich considering it's all to do with a show that they showed they cared nothing about...

[Illuyankas]

"Thatcher's funeral will have a Falklands theme"??! Are you fucking serious?

[Abyss]

Illuyankas, on 10 April 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

"Thatcher's funeral will have a Falklands theme"??! Are you fucking serious?

Does this mean that instead of a 21-gun salute, a flight of Harriers with Thatcher's face painted on the nosecone will gatling-gun a convoy of surplus Argentinian military vehicles into confetti??

...because i will SO watch that on tv!!!

[Macros]

The whole state funeral thing is a massive bloody mistake. Never going to end well and a waste of our money.

[Illuyankas]

Best/least tasteful comment I've seen so far:

"Part of me hopes that it's just 4 hours of Simon Weston shouting 'you did this to my face for nothing, NOTHING!' at her coffin."

[Silencer]

Putting aside the fact that it is probably just rehtoric, I find it disturbing/morbidly fascinating that North Korea apparently missed the memo on "MAD". "We have nukes now, we will nuke South Korea! They can't do anything about it!" -> Which country has more to lose here? Sure, SK could get nuked. But if South Korea's allies (i.e. the US) *really* wanted to, they have more than enough nukes to turn North Korea into a barren wasteland of sand and ash. Hell, North Korea is small enough, they could probably do that with conventional warheads. Sure, theoretically they wouldn't as NK is comprised mainly of a repressed civilian population being fed truckloads of propaganda (or so we'er told!!!1!!), but frankly the fact that they can and might just to make a point to the tune of "don't use nukes, mk, pumpkin?"....why even bother posturing? Why bother obtaining nuclear capabilities? You are so far down the ladder of comparative strength (I'm willing to bet their primary failing will be in the area of missile defence networks, honestly) that having the nuclear option just makes you more likely to face swift and complete retribution.

And thus the reason why I said putting aside the fact that it is probably just rhetoric - the mentality doesn't make sense from neither the side of posturing nor from the side of serious threats. Just how blind can you be to that? :S

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Silencer, on 11 April 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Putting aside the fact that it is probably just rehtoric, I find it disturbing/morbidly fascinating that North Korea apparently missed the memo on "MAD". "We have nukes now, we will nuke South Korea! They can't do anything about it!" -> Which country has more to lose here? Sure, SK could get nuked. But if South Korea's allies (i.e. the US) *really* wanted to, they have more than enough nukes to turn North Korea into a barren wasteland of sand and ash. Hell, North Korea is small enough, they could probably do that with conventional warheads. Sure, theoretically they wouldn't as NK is comprised mainly of a repressed civilian population being fed truckloads of propaganda (or so we'er told!!!1!!), but frankly the fact that they can and might just to make a point to the tune of "don't use nukes, mk, pumpkin?"....why even bother posturing? Why bother obtaining nuclear capabilities? You are so far down the ladder of comparative strength (I'm willing to bet their primary failing will be in the area of missile defence networks, honestly) that having the nuclear option just makes you more likely to face swift and complete retribution.

And thus the reason why I said putting aside the fact that it is probably just rhetoric - the mentality doesn't make sense from neither the side of posturing nor from the side of serious threats. Just how blind can you be to that? :S

Well before this needs to get moved to the Discussion Boards, it's pretty simple.

They're the scrawny rebellious teenager that gets a face tattoo to be edgy and to be noticed. Not because it's a good idea, but because it gets them attention.

[Silencer]

Adjutant Stormy~, on 11 April 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 11 April 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Putting aside the fact that it is probably just rehtoric, I find it disturbing/morbidly fascinating that North Korea apparently missed the memo on "MAD". "We have nukes now, we will nuke South Korea! They can't do anything about it!" -> Which country has more to lose here? Sure, SK could get nuked. But if South Korea's allies (i.e. the US) *really* wanted to, they have more than enough nukes to turn North Korea into a barren wasteland of sand and ash. Hell, North Korea is small enough, they could probably do that with conventional warheads. Sure, theoretically they wouldn't as NK is comprised mainly of a repressed civilian population being fed truckloads of propaganda (or so we'er told!!!1!!), but frankly the fact that they can and might just to make a point to the tune of "don't use nukes, mk, pumpkin?"....why even bother posturing? Why bother obtaining nuclear capabilities? You are so far down the ladder of comparative strength (I'm willing to bet their primary failing will be in the area of missile defence networks, honestly) that having the nuclear option just makes you more likely to face swift and complete retribution.

And thus the reason why I said putting aside the fact that it is probably just rhetoric - the mentality doesn't make sense from neither the side of posturing nor from the side of serious threats. Just how blind can you be to that? :S

Well before this needs to get moved to the Discussion Boards, it's pretty simple.

They're the scrawny rebellious teenager that gets a face tattoo to be edgy and to be noticed. Not because it's a good idea, but because it gets them attention.

Which is all fine and good on permanent life-changing "cut off your nose to spite your face" when you're a rebellious teenager.

When it's "get ourselves nuked for no gain whatsoever", I still question the motivation somewhat more than the obvious. XD


But you're right, this is very discussion-board. I just couldn't really sum up the groove-messing of the idea without elaborating a little. >.>

[Satan]

The objective isn't to win a war on the world, but to use the threat of a rather unsavory start of a war as leverage for something else. USA and allies will not draw first blood for fear of starting a war with China and they would rather not let NK draw first blood with a nuke. So negotiations, where NK position of negotiating from is shifted in their favour. They're not rebellious teenagers or (completely) mad, they're playing the game.

[Silencer]

Satan, on 11 April 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

The objective isn't to win a war on the world, but to use the threat of a rather unsavory start of a war as leverage for something else. USA and allies will not draw first blood for fear of starting a war with China and they would rather not let NK draw first blood with a nuke. So negotiations, where NK position of negotiating from is shifted in their favour. They're not rebellious teenagers or (completely) mad, they're playing the game.

But how, exactly, are they now in a better position than before? IIRC the reaction to "NK now has nukes" was more sanctions. The collective response of the UN has been "yeah, right, like they'll ever use them" coupled with "let's prepare our missile defence systems and plans to invade/blow up NK". Which is exactly what I'd expect to happen if I started threatening the world with nuclear war. Has anyone been more open to/agreeable in negotiations with NK? Are they even making that possible by slowly cutting their lines of communication with SK?
The move is counter-intuitive. At best they make themselves a threat more likely to be reacted to with extreme prejudice. At worst, they get that extreme prejudice enacted upon them. Neither of those is favourable outcomes and both are obvious, almost self-explanatory responses to "Hey look! We've got nukes and are planning to nuke our neighbours!" (To say nothing of the obvious folly of detonating a nuke that close to oneself, regardless of its tonnage).

If they were after leverage, they categorically should NOT have gone nuclear. There's a reason it's called "The Nuclear Option" and that reason is NOT that it's a good method of greasing the wheels/browbeating/threatening other nations (who, btw, have a fuckload more ways to wipe you off the face of the earth than you have to even scratch them).


Anyway, this is now discussion board material. If someone wants to start a thread, do so, but I'm not interested in ratifying this idiocy any further than it already has been by starting said thread.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Tiste Simeon, on 10 April 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Corporate greed: "Jayne Hats" crackdown by FOX lawyers which is rich considering it's all to do with a show that they showed they cared nothing about...

This. Effin' this. ThinkGeek is doing a little better in terms of diplomacy but it's still shit.

My groove is messed because I'm SO CLOSE to finishing this essay and I just wanna do it, slap a coversheet on it and submit and crack open a cold one...but I know if I do that I won't stop to edit/revise/polish it and I'll lose marks. My standardised-essay torment must needs extend for another day or so.

[Ukjent]

Crack a cold one, then edit it. Everything feels better after a cold beer.

Sleepy as hell and I regret that I bothered getting up today, listening to someone talking about debugging 8 in the morning is not fun. Especially when you know that you are not home until 9-10 in the evening.

[Starling]

Defiance, that sounds like a really tough situation.

I'd definitely second Amph's suggestion. I'm actually studying to become an SLT myself, and my clinic treats patients for free, providing they are happy interacting with students and being recorded. It may not be the same in your area, but it's definitely something worth checking out.

All the best!

[cerveza_fiesta]

Boo,

My wife and baby are out of town until the end of the week. I don't think I've ever missed anyone quite so badly and it's only been like 2 days.

I mean, babies are a pain in the ass and all, but somehow the more they poop and puke on you, the more you love them.

[Ukjent]

Hm.. grab a couple of beers then, and some pizza, and a movie! (or just game something)

[worry]

That's a very roundabout way to say "porn".

[cerveza_fiesta]

It is indeed, but how can porn replace a baby's love?


I am using the time to catch up on projects. I was up until midnight last night mortising and tenoning the legs for a new kitchen table

[Mezla PigDog]

I went to give blood tonight. I'm O negative - the one that can be given to anyone in an emergency - so I figure it's a tick in the "entry into heaven" pro's and con's list. I've given blood loads of times and never had a problem. After the blood letting it took a long time for my arm to stop bleeding and it had also taken a long time for the finger prick to test my iron levels to stop earlier. After it did stop I was sat having the mandatory tea and biscuits and awkward conversation with other donors and I look down at my arm and it was dripping with blood. You wouldn't think so much could come from a needle prick! I ended up with a couple of nurses hoisting my arm above my head and applying pressure. Now I've got rock solid bruises in the needle stick area and my finger. Ouch.

[worry]

Are you anemic?