My dad died last year, at the age of 78. My mom had a life insurance policy taken out on him through her work, but it was taking forever for them to cut a check. She finally tracked down an answer: “We can’t pay out on claims for people who are over the age of seventy.”
“He was 71 when we took out the policy! Why didn’t you tell us this then?”
“We’re not allowed to ask how old he is.”
Well, not until after he’s dead, apparently.
Happy ending: my mom’s employer is going to pay out the policy for her, plus enough extra to cover the taxes that would apply since it’s not technically an insurance payment.
We built a deck a few years ago. It’s just above ground level (about 12 inches over the grass). I wanted a rail around it that I could sit on, rest my beer on, etc. So I asked the builder.
To summarise the discussion:
Because the deck is less than 1 metre off the ground, a guard rail is not required.
If the deck is more than 1-metre off the ground, a guardrail is required. That guardrail must be at least 1 metre high (to stop kids falling over etc). Not allowed to be wide and flat on top (so kids wont climb and walk on it).
All guardrails must be the 1-metre high safety type.
Even if the deck is less than 1-metre off the ground, if you choose to have a rail around it, it must be the 1-metre high safety type.
A 1-metre high safety guardrail is too high to comfortable park your bum on and sit down. It reaches up to about the middle of your back. And it’s curved at the top, so it’s uncomfortable, and my beer will fall off.
In other words - I don’t need a deck rail. But if I want one, I have to have a style that I don’t want.
After going in circles around this conversation until my head spun, I asked the builder what to do. He said, ‘We get this all the time. I’ll build a seat - and it will say that on the plans submitted to council’.
So now I have a lovely, low deck (that doesn’t need a rail) with a rail at the perfect height - whoops, I mean a ***seat ***at the perfect height to perch on and spend a sunny afternoon having a beer/bullshit session with the mates. The fact that the seat looks exactly like a low deck rail is purely co-incidental.
My argument is not with a position on student accommodations that you made up, but with your incorrect stance that someone does not have some disability related to math because he has “tremendous” math skills. What matters is how those skills compare to his intelligence, not how those skills compare to the mean.
And my point was this individual has had a huge bevy of tests and does not have a math related disability, demonstrating that rigid definitions of learning disabilities can be incorrect.
Paying taxes: You aren’t forced to pay with a threat of incarceration, but if you don’t pay you will be forced to pay with a threat of incarceration.
Signing a ‘Do not resuscitate’ application on your deathbed, they take a while to process. Your doctor may have to choose between going against your will and breaking the law.
Not sure if those qualify, feeling a bit woozy this morning.
His doctors, who have seen the whole spectrum of tests and interviews, and surveys and all the things one does, do not think his learning differences are related to the math disparity.
And the people who are trained and certified to make this determination, which doctors typically are not, do. Assuming there aren’t more details left out.
Blame it on doctors getting no-call, no-shows. Their solution was to charge anyone who didn’t show up without giving 24 hrs notice. If there had never been a no-call, no-show problem, you wouldn’t see this policy.
There’s nothing out of whack. The kid is very good at math and super-fantastic good at reading and writing. My brother would probably get similar-type scores (albeit, not that high in either subject), and he does not have any kind of a learning disability, he’s just an all-round good student who is better at verbal tasks than math tasks, but doesn’t have a problem with math.
This is actually a good example of the fact that IQ tests aren’t meant to measure people on the high end of the intellectual spectrum.
If the kid has some kind of problem, it isn’t a learning disability. He could still have a disorder like OCD, but he is learning just fine, clearly.
My example: the brilliant school I worked for was having some massive communication problems among rule makers in different divisions. They had a rule that kids who were tardy to class had an immediate detention (either that day or the next, the kid could choose, and it was like a 1/2 hour detention, so it meant missing a bus). And it was a 0-tolerance tardy-- butt had to be in seat before the bell rang, unless you had a hall pass.
However, if you had an unexcused absence from class entirely, you had to accumulate three before you faced con sequences. The consequences amounted to a one-day in-school suspension.
I listened to two girls having a conversation in the bathroom. The bell had caught them peeing between classes (not smoking, not dawdling, not meeting boyfriends, not late to first period) and now they were debating whether to got to class at all; they had a test review for an exam the next day they didn’t want to miss, but one said her mother would kill her if she had to arrange to pick her up after a detention-- she’d have to take a late lunch from work to do it, or something, and she didn’t have any other “cuts,” so she wasn’t in danger of an in-school suspension, which in any event, wouldn’t present a problem for her parents. The other one was resigning herself to a four-mile walk home, and keeping it a secret from her parents, but she was going to miss some activity.
Not really a classic catch-22, but still a dilemma, and an unfair one to put high school students in, if you ask me.