Indeed.

No- the key word is 'sidetrack' for that is all this is. With respect, you've totally missed the point being made here.

If we're going to make totally random excuses for people, with the defence that 'if we don't know for sure we can't rule it out' why don't we just do the same for all of them, and why stop at dyslexia. We could make anything up and use it as a defence unless others can prove otherwise.

Perhaps all of Marc detractors should be hit with 'perhaps he has an as yet diagnosed brain condition that means he couldn't help say naughty things to people on occassion'. I mean if you can't prove 100% otherwise, why not give him the benefit of the doubt too.

etc etc.

To excuse stupidity by trying to throw some make believe stuff into the mix without any actual knowledge other than speculation, is a nonsense. It's also perhaps a bit offensive to dyslexic people who are as far removed from the point of this thread as it's possible to be.

Still- as a sidetrack it's worked pretty well.

"At what point" questions can be very difficult to answer, and I can't tell what sort of answer you expect. How do you answer the question?

I don't think there's any straightforward way to draw a line. If someone doesn't know some pieces of 'basic general knowlege', they might know many others or even many things that aren't so basic. I suppose we might consider their personal history of learning opportunities and what they did with them, but we seldom know that much about a person; we certainly don't know that much about housemates.

IMO, some of the things people have been calling 'basic' aren't. I don't think how to spell "canoe" or "who is Henry VIII?" or "who was the 1st man on the moon?" are basic. The number of months in the year might be basic, perhaps, but has a HM got that wrong? (In bb9, Rachel struggled with the number of days in a year, and made incorrect guesses, but she seemed reasonably intelligent and not wilfully ignorant.)

I also wonder about 'wilful ignorance'. In one of your earlier posts, you said:


I think that is the hypothetical question that's been talked about. But what counts as an opportunity to learn something? Since I'm sitting at a computer connected to the internet right now, that might in some sense count as an opportunity to learn a vast range of things, but am I supposed to be 'wilfully ignorant' because I don't know them all?

Some people seemed to think that merely seeing a word in print means you ought to know how to spell it. I don't agree, as I explained earlier. It's an opportunity to learn how to spell it, but so what? I don't automatically even notice the letter-by-letter spelling of every word I read, much less memorise it. Why should I? I can read faster and more enjoyably without doing those things, and when I need to spell something I can't, I can get close enough to look it up.

No sorry I wasn't very clear, it was the powers that be laying it on thick I was referring to over the tweet. Not Danny in this instance.

What's hard to understand about it? I don't think there's an explanation that's any clearer than those words already ought to be. Can't you just think back to what happened and see that it's reasonable to describe that as in a BB context? Danny was in BB, was given a question by BB, and it was about BB housemates. We struggle with that sort of issue out here, so I don't see much problem in Danny being unsure. What exactly counts as a HM being 'genuine'?

Yeah to be fair though it annoys me much more when the bullies are applauded and win.

People are entitled to discuss the issue how they want, whether that is pitching in on one side or the other of a polarised argument, or fleshing the debate out with other possibilities which are not necessarily postings in favour of or against either side of the polarised argument.

Of course they are, that was never in question. That does however include me of course.

Of course. My point is that, not coming down on one side or another of a two-way polarised argument and suggesting that there are other possible positions is not "sidetracking" - it's not off topic, it's not a deliberate attempt to frustrate others' postings, it's simply an alternative view that is equally valid. Which is of course, the bit you cut out when you quoted me.

On the other hand he might just be thick.

Ok - let's go with that. He's "thick".

Do you think that's an appropriate label?

If we go with another label, what should it be - lacking in intelligence? Uneducated? Wilfully ignorant?

Do we know which of these it is?

How?

Do any of those justify ridicule? Contempt?

Even apparent wilful ignorance can have roots in all sorts of things.


But I guess it is just easier to assume stuff and stick a label on.

Bit lazy that, eh?

Saying "as a sidetrack it's worked pretty well" could make it sound like a tactic designed to draw the thread away from what it's meant to be discussing.

Anyway, I don't think it is being used as such a tactic and, though it is a side issue, it has some relevance; it's not like we're discussing something completely unconnected such as the best place to get pizza in Miami. Nor is it a random excuse. Some people think dyslexia is a plausible explanation for some of what we've seen from Danny; others don't. But so long as people can give reasons for their views, there can be a meaningful discussion.

I think HMs should be given some benefit of the doubt. I don't mean that we should never draw conclusions or should fill our posts with qualifications and perhapses; but at least in the back of our minds, we should have the possibility that there's something relevant that we don't know.

It is absolutely positively 100% a sidetrack and for the reasons I have already given.

The above totally misses the main point I have made. If I'm honest, it doesn't even come close to addressing it, so I'd argue it's a bit rich to talk about bits of posts being cut out.

(it's not personal I promise but if I addressed every point of every post that came my way I'd never leave the PC).

In your opinion, because you consider this to be a two way polarised debate. Others do not.

Of course in my opinion, although the evidence strongly supports my position I would say (and again for the reasons already given).

The fact that (some) others do not btw, doesn't surprise me int eh slightest, and the original points I made, remain.

Sounds like you've no respect for the alternate view. What do you mean it doesn't surprise you. What evidence?

OK well using this logic, and again referencing the post quoted, where I mentioned this- 'If we're going to make totally random excuses for people, with the defence that 'if we don't know for sure we can't rule it out' why don't we just do the same for all of them, and why stop at dyslexia'.

Do you think Helen wood should be excused all of her bad behaviours? If not why not?

Do we know whether she has had a tramatic childhood that may have affected her in some way? Do we know if she has some psychological issue that may affect how she delivers some of her lines to others?

For all we know the above (or any other imagined scenario) may be a direct cause of how she is. Using the logic on here- we do not know for sure that they may be some external factor that has heavily influenced her. Unless you or anyone else here can categorically prove otherwise, she must be forgiven all sins.

Excuse one, excuse them all. Or not.

You are still confusing "excusing" with considering possible (note possible) explanations.

Thanks for considering and answering my question even if you don't agree with me at all.

Veri has posted the same principle position as others, just with examples.

It's certainly not I who is confused, and categorically not by the use of the word 'excusing' which is perfectly valid, especially given the context.

I notice you still haven't addressed a single one of the main points I've made, and yet here I am taking the time to reply to you on yours. Maybe we should leave this here as it's clear we'll be going round in circles.

By all means re-read my posts. The answers you seek are already there.

"The answers"

LOL

But what is the point - or benefit - with hanging a HM's actions on a condition there is no knowledge that they have?

I remember several cases in the past where HM's have been DS diagnosed as on the autistic spectrum and it's been said how wrong it is to diagnose people,through the television screen on limited information.

I appreciate it may be tough for some people to grasp (who knows- perhaps they are dyslexic) but it's not really a debate is it when the main points I have made have been totally ignored, and yet you still post stuff at me. It's meant to be a 2 way thing.

We kinda failed at the first hurdle

As you might say- LOL.

Well, it wasn't clear to me, hence the reason I asked for further clarification.

Well if I remember correctly, he asked Whats does genuine mean? as in the definition. If he was really asking about what context BB was using in it wouldn't he ask BB ' What do you mean by genuine? '.