Louisiana law gets medieval

[rogue06]

But, it's a bacon thread, no?

bacon dog.jpg

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I said that. but then you immediately mentioned that Special Needs also referred to gifted children which set off the argument.

In response to the comment by rogue06, who then maintained that he had only employed the phrase in response to what I had written on the topic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If I have my H-Aisms right... that was naught but a mirthful observation.

Then why did you later claim that you only used the phrase in response to what I had written?

.

[rogue06]

Then why did you later claim that you only used the phrase in response to what I had written?

.

Are you finally willing to try to support your claim that in Britain special needs means capable and gifted folk? Or are you going to admit that was nothing but bovine scat?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you finally willing to try to support your claim that in Britain special needs means capable and gifted folk? Or are you going to admit that was nothing but bovine scat?

I am pointing out that what you wrote on 14 May is blatantly untrue.

05-14-2024, 12:29 PM

Why did I use the phrase? Because you made the false claim that in Britain it also means capable, gifted children when there is not only a lack of evidence to support this claim of yours and a good deal that flies in its face

As you introduced the phrase on 7 May here:

We're all special. In different ways. Like you are special... special needs, apparently.

As a reply to this:

My error. I intended your flagrant self promotion as if you are a special individual.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out. and which you are unable to comprehend, or at least openly acknowledge; the term "disability" has a variety of interpretations and is used to cover a range of needs or issues.

[rogue06]

Are you finally willing to try to support your claim that in Britain special needs means capable and gifted folk? Or are you going to admit that was nothing but bovine scat?

I am pointing out that what you wrote on 14 May is blatantly untrue.

I'll take that as a hard no.

I'm just curious as to where you came up with your rather unique definition of "special needs."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'll take that as a hard no.

I'm just curious as to where you came up with your rather unique definition of "special needs."

Are you going to acknowledge that what you wrote on 14 May was wrong/untrue? Or does that require a degree of rectitude that is quite beyond you?

[rogue06]

Are you going to acknowledge that what you wrote on 14 May was wrong/untrue? Or does that require a degree of rectitude that is quite beyond you?

I guess that's yet another hard "no" disguised as an attempt to distract and deflect. I've been asking you for an answer since well before you decided that feigned outrage was your best tactic.

As I said, I'm curious just where you came up with your own unique definition for special needs and why you pretended that's how the British define it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I guess that's yet another hard "no" disguised as an attempt to distract and deflect. I've been asking you for an answer since well before you decided that feigned outrage was your best tactic.

And I have asked you to admit that what you wrote on14 May alleging that you only used the term "special needs" in response to what I wrote on the topic is untrue.


You are having difficulties in doing so.

As I said, I'm curious just where you came up with your own unique definition for special needs and why you pretended that's how the British define it.

The term disability has various definitions. You seem unable to comprehend that simple fact,

[Cow Poke]

beating-a-dead-horse-funny.gif

[rogue06]

And I have asked you to admit that what you wrote on14 May alleging that you only used the term "special needs" in response to what I wrote on the topic is untrue.

You have used this to avoid answering my question regarding just where did you get the idea that special needs means things for capable, gifted people. I have my suspicions which coincide nicely with why you refuse to answer.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have used this to avoid answering my question regarding just where did you get the idea that special needs means things for capable, gifted people. I have my suspicions which coincide nicely with why you refuse to answer.

You still lack the courage to admit that your comments on 14 May were untrue.

[Sparko]

Then why did you later claim that you only used the phrase in response to what I had written?

.

he said

Why did I use the phrase? Because you made the false claim that in Britain it also means capable, gifted children when there is not only a lack of evidence to support this claim of yours and a good deal that flies in its face

Which is consistent with what I said. You first mentioned that special needs included gifted children. I showed that in my quote.
He mentioned "special needs" first, but you are the one who said that it applies to gifted. THAT is what he was responding to. He didn't say you said "special needs" first, He said you said "special needs applies to gifted children" first. and you did.

[Cow Poke]

he said

Why did I use the phrase? Because you made the false claim that in Britain it also means capable, gifted children when there is not only a lack of evidence to support this claim of yours and a good deal that flies in its face

Which is consistent with what I said. You first mentioned that special needs included gifted children. I showed that in my quote.
He mentioned "special needs" first, but you are the one who said that it applies to gifted. THAT is what he was responding to. He didn't say you said "special needs" first, He said you said "special needs applies to gifted children" first. and you did.

Yeah!!!

[rogue06]

he said

Why did I use the phrase? Because you made the false claim that in Britain it also means capable, gifted children when there is not only a lack of evidence to support this claim of yours and a good deal that flies in its face

Which is consistent with what I said. You first mentioned that special needs included gifted children. I showed that in my quote.
He mentioned "special needs" first, but you are the one who said that it applies to gifted. THAT is what he was responding to. He didn't say you said "special needs" first, He said you said "special needs applies to gifted children" first. and you did.

Give her a break.

First she made an unsupportable claim about it meaning capable gifted people only for that to implode.

Then she tried claiming that "special needs" is a slur only for that to implode.

Then she switched gears and declared that it's "disabled" that's a slur only for that to implode as well.

This distraction is all she has left and now you want to show it has no basis thus causing it to implode as well.

Soon she'll be left with nothing but to try to defend her claim, although I figure someone will whisper in her ear yet another way to deflect before we finally get to that.