50 Conditions That Mimic "ADHD"



In what state? I want to point out to my administration that the law
requires I get a bathroom break every 2 hours.

magi

looper wrote:
> That is already a state law.
>
> SumBuny wrote:
>
>> "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>> .
>>
>>> They have way more flexibility than I have! If I'm not in the classroom
>>> between 7:30 and 3:00, who is? A sub? What if there aren't any?
>>>

>>
>>
>> <G> One of the sticking points in the current contract disputes in our
>> dictrict is this: Guaranteed bathroom breaks at least once every two
>> hours
>> (especially problematic for elementary school teachers and special ed
>> teachers)...
>>
>> Buny
>>
>>
>>

>
 
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:37:16 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:57:01 -0500, JZAH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:14:23 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>old elementary and high school teachers, who, nevertheless, I thank from the
>>>bottom of my heart for teaching me some useful communication skills that
>>>have served me well.

>>
>>Didn't you mean "whom" instead of "who" and "which" instead of "that?"

>
>"Whom" would be correct, from a strict grammatical standpoint.


You're wrong in making that qualification. In standard usage, it must
be "whom." "Who" is a subject. "Whom" is a direct object.

>"Which," as
>opposed to "that," would not.


You're wrong. The word "which" would be correct here. "That" is
preferred in a sentence where the meaning is restrictive, i.e.
specifying one item within a group of items. The word "which" is
preferred where there is no such restriction intended.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/which.html

JZAH
 
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:47:15 -0600, JZAH <[email protected]> wrote:

>>"Whom" would be correct, from a strict grammatical standpoint.

>
>You're wrong in making that qualification. In standard usage, it must
>be "whom." "Who" is a subject. "Whom" is a direct object.


I wish you'd not snipped my qualifier in the next paragraph:

>>The subjective form of the personal pronoun, "who" is often used with impunity
>>in this kind of colloquial communication.


Colloquial speech does not always adhere to strict grammatical rules. It does
not make the departures from The Rules less incorrect--but it those departures
are often still acceptable to colloquial speakers.

Joe Parsons
 
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:19:19 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:47:15 -0600, JZAH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>"Whom" would be correct, from a strict grammatical standpoint.

>>
>>You're wrong in making that qualification. In standard usage, it must
>>be "whom." "Who" is a subject. "Whom" is a direct object.

>
>I wish you'd not snipped my qualifier in the next paragraph:
>
>>>The subjective form of the personal pronoun, "who" is often used with impunity
>>>in this kind of colloquial communication.

>
>Colloquial speech does not always adhere to strict grammatical rules. It does
>not make the departures from The Rules less incorrect--but it those departures
>are often still acceptable to colloquial speakers.


"Ain't" is colloquial, too, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.
"Who" in place of "whom" isn't correct. It's just that simple.

JZAH
 
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:40:55 -0600, JZAH <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:19:19 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:47:15 -0600, JZAH <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Whom" would be correct, from a strict grammatical standpoint.
>>>
>>>You're wrong in making that qualification. In standard usage, it must
>>>be "whom." "Who" is a subject. "Whom" is a direct object.

>>
>>I wish you'd not snipped my qualifier in the next paragraph:
>>
>>>>The subjective form of the personal pronoun, "who" is often used with impunity
>>>>in this kind of colloquial communication.

>>
>>Colloquial speech does not always adhere to strict grammatical rules. It does
>>not make the departures from The Rules less incorrect--but it those departures
>>are often still acceptable to colloquial speakers.

>
>"Ain't" is colloquial, too, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.


It is acceptable in the appropriate group. Please note: "acceptable" and
"correct" are not the same thing.

>"Who" in place of "whom" isn't correct. It's just that simple.


Please see above.

Joe Parsons
 
Go to your state personnel board. Ask for a quote on the law.

Magi D. Shepley wrote:

> In what state? I want to point out to my administration that the law
> requires I get a bathroom break every 2 hours.
>
> magi
>
> looper wrote:
>
>> That is already a state law.
>>
>> SumBuny wrote:
>>
>>> "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>> .
>>>
>>>> They have way more flexibility than I have! If I'm not in the
>>>> classroom
>>>> between 7:30 and 3:00, who is? A sub? What if there aren't any?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <G> One of the sticking points in the current contract disputes in our
>>> dictrict is this: Guaranteed bathroom breaks at least once every two
>>> hours
>>> (especially problematic for elementary school teachers and special ed
>>> teachers)...
>>>
>>> Buny
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>

>
 
The law does't exist, Lou. I want YOU to do the research since you're
the one that brought it up. I know you won't, though, because you never
do.

Magi

looper wrote:
> Go to your state personnel board. Ask for a quote on the law.
>
> Magi D. Shepley wrote:
>
>> In what state? I want to point out to my administration that the law
>> requires I get a bathroom break every 2 hours.
>>
>> magi
>>
>> looper wrote:
>>
>>> That is already a state law.
>>>
>>> SumBuny wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote in
>>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>> They have way more flexibility than I have! If I'm not in the
>>>>> classroom
>>>>> between 7:30 and 3:00, who is? A sub? What if there aren't any?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <G> One of the sticking points in the current contract disputes in our
>>>> dictrict is this: Guaranteed bathroom breaks at least once every two
>>>> hours
>>>> (especially problematic for elementary school teachers and special ed
>>>> teachers)...
>>>>
>>>> Buny
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>

>
 
"looper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go to your state personnel board. Ask for a quote on the law.


Oh, I get it...you make an assertion, but you refuse to do your
homework....what a model student (not!). You claim it is a state law--Magi
and I asked *what* state...we know it is not in *our* states, so following
your "advice" is futile...

Again--*what* state?
Buny





>
> Magi D. Shepley wrote:
>
> > In what state? I want to point out to my administration that the law
> > requires I get a bathroom break every 2 hours.
> >
> > magi
> >
> > looper wrote:
> >
> >> That is already a state law.
> >>
> >> SumBuny wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote in
> >>> message

news:[email protected]...
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>>> They have way more flexibility than I have! If I'm not in the
> >>>> classroom
> >>>> between 7:30 and 3:00, who is? A sub? What if there aren't any?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <G> One of the sticking points in the current contract disputes in our
> >>> dictrict is this: Guaranteed bathroom breaks at least once every two
> >>> hours
> >>> (especially problematic for elementary school teachers and special ed
> >>> teachers)...
> >>>
> >>> Buny
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>

> >

>
 
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> But there ARE legitimate reasons for someone not to show up every day,
> >> which are not legitimate reasons for firing someone.

> >
> >Most people in the USA get fired for not showing up. Hardly
> >anyone has a contract that allows one to be paid while sitting in
> >jail and not doing the work. Guilt or innocence of accused crimes
> >doesn't matter. No work, no pay.

>
> I think that you will find that people accused of wrongdoing in the
> public sector are often placed on administrative leave WITH pay while
> the outcome is determined. Police officers are often given such leave
> after a shooting even if there is no serious question of wrong doing
> on their part.


This totally different. When a police officer is involved in a shooting,
the best thing that can be done, is for him/her to get off the streets,
for a few days. It doesn't matter how legitimate the shooting is. In
fact several studies have shown, officers involved in "Clean shootings"
often suffer severe PTSS. Almost all police forces in the USA, have
policies dealing with how much time off, an officer gets after a
shooting. Usually it is a couple of days of leave, and testing, followed
by a couple weeks of desk work. In other words they follow departmental
policy. This is totally different than taking time off because you are
in jail, even if you are in jail for shooting someone.



>
> The news today reports military personnel from Iraq returning home for
> R&R, for which they will get full pay, in addition to the free travel.


Gee whiz! We shipped them off to war for several months, now we are
giveing them plane fare home. Are you trying to say, this somehow
entitles you to paid time off, while you are in jail?


>
> lojbab
> --
> lojbab [email protected]
> Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
> (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 
Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg, of Ann Arbor, Michigan posted the pathological
lies, veiled threats, false accusations or personal attacks on Linda Gore,
sane members of Linda's family, or Linda's usenet friends contained in the
post below.

Patricia Gore Gregg has repeatedly been informed for a decade that Linda
Gore wants nothing whatsoever to do with Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg.

Patricia Gore Gregg disregards Linda Gore's demand Patricia leave her the
hell alone, and Patricia trolls, stalks, harasses and defames Linda Gore
instead because of what an extraordinarily vile, sadistic, depraved,
vicious, malicious, narcissistic/psychopathic person Patricia Sharon Gore
Gregg is.

Linda Gore determined there exists no legitimate place for Patricia Gore
Gregg, her eldest sister, in Linda Gore's life because of the outrageous
abuse Patricia Gore Gregg has engaged in towards Linda Gore for 47 years,
solely owing to Patricia's narcissistic rage since Linda' birth because
Patricia was no longer the only child.

Linda Gore accepts the reality that Patricia Gore Gregg will never ever
cease desiring that Linda be retroactively aborted nor attempting to destroy
Linda so long as Linda breathes.

Linda Gore wised up to that reality and denied Patricia Gore Gregg a place
in Linda's life in the aftermath of an incident wherein Patricia Gore Gregg
severely traumatized Linda Gore's young son, a dozen years ago, when
Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's rage incited Patricia to abandon and strand
Linda Gore and her then 4 year old son, 2500 miles from Linda's home, with
only the shirt and pants they had on, while taking Linda Gore's purse,
wallet, ID, money, essential thyroid medication and even both Linda and
her 4 year old son shoes, etc, traumatizing Linda's young son. Patricia
Sharon Gore Gregg traumatized him a second time by her calling ahead to
SanDiego where her husband was a guest in Linda Gore's townhome, and
instructing her husband to lock linda Gore and her 4 year old son out of
their own home, and further instructing him to STEAL Linda Gore's auto,
a felony which Linda Gore deeply regrets not having prosecuted both Patricia
and James Gregg for ---so these awful people be locked up in PRISON where
they can't be making decent people physically ill.

Three years ago, many years after Linda Gore booted Patricia Gore Gregg
from linda's life, Patricia Gore's rage at being unable to locate Linda
Gore for so many years, grew to such proportions that Patricia went over
the edge, in the humble opinon of members of Patricia's FOO, as she was
allegeldy making threats to physically harm people, so members of Patricia
Sharon Gore Gregg's FOO proposed a psychiatric intervention for Patricia
Sharon Gore Gregg.

Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's mother was asked to write a history of Patricia
Sharon Gore Gregg's life to help Patricia Sharon
Gore Gregg's psychiatrist help Patricia.

By the time Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's Mother finished writing the story
of Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's life, she realized what Patricia had been
doing to her FOO was terrorizing it, and titled the work "Reign of Terror".

Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg got ahold of a copy of the document, titled
REIGN OF TERROR, allegedly by stealing it, and reacted vindictively to her
terrorism of members of her FOO being documented by her mother initially by
harassing her mother about the document in her Mother's social circles.

Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's mother responded to Patricia's attempt to
misuse the document prepared confidentially for Patricia's pdoc, by
copyrighting it.

In the meantime, Patricia Gore Gregg located Linda Gore, discovering Linda
Gore
had been "hiding out" from the world--- on a usenet public support,
ASD-med discussing antidepressant meds Linda Gore took to augment her
thyroid medication.

Then later, on the Tourettes group owing to her son's TS, and then the
ADHD group owing to linda's growing suspicion linda had ADHD underlying her
thyroid disease.

Whereupon Patricia Gore Gregg commenced this usenet protracted trolling,
flaming, stalkiing, harassing and posting pathological lies to defame
Linda Gore.

Initially, Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg attempted to persuade Linda to
disregard her pdoc's opinion that Linda Gore is fine, and any psych
symptoms she has are secondary to her medical conditions or owing to living
such a sucky life being trolled by Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg for 47 years.

Failing to persuade Linda to ignore her own doctors, Patricia Sharon Gore
Gregg must have decided to troll, stalk, harass, and defame Linda Gore
and try to MAKE her ill by so doing!

Patricia began her trolling of Linda in earnest by posting posts providing
personally identifying info about Linda, her son, and other members of
Linda Gore's FOO to a delusional, deranged usenet poster whom had homicidal
ideations led to somebody posting posts soliciting Linda Gore's murder, in
the deranged man's unique writing style.

While Linda Gore had been around usenet long enough to know it was futile to
attempt to control what Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg posted, including
personal identifying info potentially endangering peoples lives, Linda
Gore's mother and younger brother, both residents of New Jersey were not
willing to ignore Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's posting posts providing a
potentionally dangerous man, also a resident of New Jersey, personally
identifying info about Linda, her son and the other NJ members of Linda's
FOO---and her mother and younger brother filed complaints regarding Patricia
Sharon Gore Gregg's posting such info with Patricia's ISP, Posting hosts,
Google, and authorities where appropriate, and got Patricias accounts
closed, posts removed etc.

In response to Linda's mother and younger brothers activities to stop
Patricia Gore Gregg net abuse, Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg posted Linda
Gore's mother and ex's telephone number on the manic ng, as well as,
posted posts containing false accusations Linda Gore was filing net abuse
complaints against Patricia Gore Gregg.

Linda Gore hadn't been being baited by Patricia's trolling, stalking,
harssment and defamation, until
Patricia Gore Gregg posted posts denying the reality Patricia's mother and
younger brother were the one's filing all the complaints against Patricia
and getting her accounts closed and posts removed for her reckless
endangerment of members of her FOO.

Patricia Gore Gregg's followed up posting those false accusations on Linda's
regular NG's with posts to SPP falsely accusing Linda Gore, the absent
member of the family for the psych intervention other family members had
sought for Patricia three years ago.

Those insane posters were followed up by Patricia posting insane posts on
the sci.psychology.psychotherapy newsgroup falsely accusing Linda Gore
of authoring or co-authoring the copyrighted work titled.."Reign of Terorr"
Patricia's mother had written to document Patricia Gore Gregg's abuse
of her FOO.

When Linda Gore posted a post informing the world the actual author of the
Reign of Terror had copyrighted her work, and the author was not Linda
Gore,
Patricia Gore Gregg changed the pathological lies she was posting on SPP
about the "Reign of Terror", to lies where Patricia falsely asserted the
allegations the "Reign of Terror" contained about Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg
sexually molesting a sibling were Linda Gore's allegations.

Linda Gore did not author the "Reign of Terror".

Linda Gore made NO contribution whatsoever to the contents of the document
titled "Reign of Terror".

Linda Gore was not aware that the document "Reign of Terror" had been
written until Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg began harassing Linda Gore in
cyberspace about it's contents.

When Linda Gore decided there was no legitimate place in her life for
Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg, Linda Gore had informed relatives she desired
to be kept out of the loop with regards to any news of Patricia Sharon Gore
Gregg's acts of malice against members of her FOO.

The allegations contained in the "Reign of Terror" about Patricia Gore
Gregg's sexual molestation of a sibling were made by Patricia Gregg's middle
brother.

No one knew a thing about Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's baby
raping/sodomizing of Linda Gore when LG was 3yo, or about Patricia Gore
Gregg's flying into a terrorfying rage during which she tried to rape LG
when LG was 11,
until Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg posted posts falsely accusing Linda Gore of
having been the one whose allegations of that nature were contained in the
document "Reign of Terror."

Patricias posting of those incidents not only informed the entire world of
Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's depravity, for the first time, but distressed
Linda by reminding linda of events Linda had spent a lifetime seeking to
forget.

Most recently, Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's, a vile baby sodomizer/rapist,
a pathological liar, a thief, a home wrecker, a child abandoner, the 47
year long terrorizer of members of her FOO, the traumatizer of their
children, an elder abuser,
and a serial stalker IRL, has followed her years of terrorizing members of
her FOO by allegedly going to the social services department of one or
members she's been terrorizing, and reporting them for living in what
Patricia Gore Gregg's has "judged" to be depressed living conditions.

Patricia Gore Gregg posting pathological lies and false accusations and
threats and bait do sicken and depress Linda Gore.

Because Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg's posts are undeniable and irrefutable
evidence of what Linda Gore has always known; Patricia Sharon Gore Gregg is
most likely criminally insane, and Patricia Gore Gregg has most likely
always been criminally insane.


X-Abuse-Trace: 446576696c734164766f63617465
From: "DeChiera" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,alt.support.attn-deficit,misc.educa
tion,k12.chat.teacher
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Subject: So where is jake ... when you need him???
Lines: 4
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:22:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.87.80.67
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1066717372 12.87.80.67 (Tue, 21
Oct 2003 06:22:52 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:22:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path:
kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!diablo.voicenet.com!cycny
01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.
ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit misc.health.alternative:243845 misc.kids.health:76067
alt.support.attn-deficit:159089 misc.education:113908
k12.chat.teacher:136627


"DeChiera" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Come out, come out where ever you are???? whomever you are ????
>
>
>