I’ll send you a consulting invoice.
Don’t worry, though, you can pay me in memes.
I am aware (painfully). And not just learning disability, but any kind of disability that may interfere with the ability to take the test according to time. Which is great, at least on paper. But then it makes you wonder… if reasonable accommodations can be made for disability, and part of what goes into “reasonable” would be that it doesn’t completely undermine the point of the exam… then what’s the point in having anything but a “literally don’t take all day” time limit to the exam? Again, but for the economy of not making someone spend eight hours proctoring what, for the vast majority of people, might only be a three to five hour exam.
Anyway, it’s fresh in my mind because I took an exam about a year ago, and while I might have been able to get extra time, the paperwork needed to do so and the time it takes to get such paperwork gathered (particularly when dealing with the VA) made it too much of a pain. So I went, I took the exam without extra time, and I… did well enough. But not as well as I’d have liked or could have done with more time (or without the disability). It would have probably been a much bigger deal if I had needed to maximize scholarships to make school affordable.
Come to think of it, I’m still waiting for the VA to process my GI Bill claim…
What if you have to request more time to complete the psychological testing?
See, you say that as a joke, but it’s actually much closer to the truth than you might realize. And certainly closer than it should be. It favors people with access to healthcare (not just as a binary yes/no proposition, but also to timely and responsive healthcare). In my case, the condition was already diagnosed, but just getting a few minutes with someone to fill out the proper forms required by the testing people was a major hurdle that I chose not to deal with in the end (although, had I scored just a little bit worse, I probably would have retaken the exam, and made sure I had the extra time to do it).
I think there needs to be a reasonable balance. Assign fewer questions, so some people may finish twenty minutes early, and most will finish five or ten minutes early.
I could have used extra time to take the Jeopardy! prequalification test, because my essential tremor makes fast typing quite difficult.
IIRC, I also had to mouse my cursor over to a designated spot to submit my answers (another area where the tremor cost me time).
Didn’t that make it really hard to operate the signaling device?
I wouldn’t expect it to. That’s, what, like clicking a retractable ballpoint pen with your thumb right there on the button? And then you get to say the answer out loud.
Also, in my case, the tremor made it impossible for me to achieve a passing score, so I’ve not been on the show. And I can’t try again for several months.
@SlackerInc doth protest too much, methinks.
Offered without comment necessary,
One does wonder how much he’d be willing to give up just to ‘’‘win’‘’?
As I just posted in that other thread, there is a limit:
That example in no way explains your position.
“If that’s what voters want, we’d better give it to them, even if it’s dumb.”
If an avowed atheist ran in the Democratic primary against an Ultra-Orthodox Jew who would you campaign against? Or would your head assexplode?
That would suck, but I’d definitely support the atheist if there were no mainline Protestant or Catholic candidates.
ETA: Since your quote of me came from a different thread, let’s be sure to provide the context. “If that’s what voters want, we’d better give it to them, even if it’s dumb" does not mean “whatever voters want, give it to them even if it’s appallingly immoral”. The antecedent of “that” in “if that’s what voters want” was specifically this from an earlier post of mine:
What I want is plainspoken “heartland” types that people can imagine living in their “flyover country” hometowns, sitting around a kitchen table with corny knicknacks and crocheted “inspirational” kitschy art on the walls (“Home Sweet Home” with no irony, “Blonde Jesus”, etc.)
IOW, dumb, yes; but harmless on the merits.
Even your self-abasing bigotry is condescending and pretentious. That’s… impressive isn’t the word I’m looking for. Maybe more like… fucktarded? Yeah, fucktarded.
Okay, so Christians are your first choice. And if there are no Christians available, atheists are your second choice.
Are Jews your third choice if there are no Christians or atheists? Or do they fall behind some other religious group like Buddhists or Hindus? And where do Muslims fit in your hierarchy?
He’s on record as stating that he despises Muslims, that he hates them the way that Jews hate Hitler. So I think that’s probably his floor. Nothing’s worse than a Muslim
I’ll point out for the umpteenth time that claims of “he’s on the record as _____” without citing actual posts (or you could cite tweets, or posts from Reddit, even Daily Kos—I’m a cross platform presence) are worth exactly as much as the paper they are (not) printed on. 
If I were a tenth as awful as you all insist I am, you would have abundant evidence to support your calumnies, instead of asking the casual reader to take your word for it.
Or we just heed Buckminster Fuller’s advice and avoid spending too much time reading your slimy posts.
Not evangelicals. Not Mormons unless it’s Utah. A moderate Muslim would be fine in the CD containing Dearborn. An atheist or Buddhist could work in Seattle, a secular Jew like Chuck Schumer in NY or FL. But on national tickets, you should stick with mainstream Catholics and Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. No need to get too exotic for swing voters in the Milwaukee or Phoenix suburbs.
You have to remember that @SlackerInc’s dream scenario is the reemergence of the Dixiecrats. His efforts within the Democratic Party are toward that goal.