Norwood for student working several grade-leves ahead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

150 to 160 IQ mom again with the kid in public magnet and another real smart kid.
It's important to realize that Norwood can provide the enviroment for kids like mine. Really.
I was incredibly bright as a child and I did very well in private.

Anyone can do so.

so I don't know why all the argument.

Just to be clear, I posted very similar information in 10:17, but I'm not the poster quoted above. I do agree that many kids can do well in private, especially highly motivated kids.

I don't necessarily agree that "Anyone can do so," because I accept that some kids would need the structure and attention that only homeschooling can provide.

But I think this poster and I would agree that there are big differences among kids, and that a parent who knows the kid well is equipped to make the appropriate decision.

[Anonymous]

I should know. My IQ is 150 to 160 anyway.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes the troll pretends to be PPs and either answers questions directed to them or appropriates identifying pieces of information. I read the semi-literate post quoted by 17:14/10:17 as this kind of move.

This is another reason why some kind of unique identifier for each poster would be a good idea -- even if it only functioned at the level of the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the troll pretends to be PPs and either answers questions directed to them or appropriates identifying pieces of information. I read the semi-literate post quoted by 17:14/10:17 as this kind of move.

This is another reason why some kind of unique identifier for each poster would be a good idea -- even if it only functioned at the level of the thread.

OK, thanks. I suspected as much, but I didn't want to call somebody a troll without firm proof -- the tone on this thread is already bad enough. We'll never have such proof without identifiers, as you say. The obvious grammatical mistakes are definitely a hint, though.

[Anonymous]

Back to K-3 giftedness. If the child is really deeply gifted in numbers, I suggest that mom or dad engage a lot too - to support, to make it fun. If you look on the Art of Problem Solving, there are several forums there for problem solving. Most of it is geared toward Middle and High School, but the problem forums are great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the troll pretends to be PPs and either answers questions directed to them or appropriates identifying pieces of information. I read the semi-literate post quoted by 17:14/10:17 as this kind of move.

This is another reason why some kind of unique identifier for each poster would be a good idea -- even if it only functioned at the level of the thread.

OK, thanks. I suspected as much, but I didn't want to call somebody a troll without firm proof -- the tone on this thread is already bad enough. We'll never have such proof without identifiers, as you say. The obvious grammatical mistakes are definitely a hint, though.

It happened to me earlier in this thread, which is how I know it's going on. Like you, I didn't call anyone on it, but given that it now appears to be a pattern, I thought it was worth pointing out.

[Anonymous]

Great sugestion. You must have gotten this information from the posters on this board? Sounds like you are doing your homework after the lessons.

[Anonymous]

I got another one...spelling error.....it's suggestions

[Anonymous]

You see. All these trolls don't appreciate my talent for picking up spelling mistakes. Afterall, my IQ was 150 to 160 and both my chiildren are geniae . I have one at Takoma Park magnet like I've said so many times before but the trolls never listen to anyone's elses point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You see. All these trolls don't appreciate my talent for picking up spelling mistakes. Afterall, my IQ was 150 to 160 and both my chiildren are geniae . I have one at Takoma Park magnet like I've said so many times before but the trolls never listen to anyone's elses point of view.

That's genii not geniae -- the first declension, not the second (and you didn't even get the plural right for the second declension, had it been the second declension, but whatever). And what on earth is going on with your use of the possessive in your second sentence?

I wish Jeff would just weed you out, so the grownups can have a discussion.

[Anonymous]

By the way. I know I'm write. It says so in my Latin text. And my IQ was 150 to 160. Much higher than yours.

[Anonymous]

That's genii not geniae -- the first declension, not the second (and you didn't even get the plural right for the second declension, had it been the second declension, but whatever). And what on earth is going on with your use of the possessive in your second sentence?

I wish Jeff would just weed you out, so the grownups can have a discussion.

Despite your former IQ of 150 to 160. Ironically, we are really amazed that Jaff has not weeded you from the system after all these years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the troll pretends to be PPs and either answers questions directed to them or appropriates identifying pieces of information. I read the semi-literate post quoted by 17:14/10:17 as this kind of move.

This is another reason why some kind of unique identifier for each poster would be a good idea -- even if it only functioned at the level of the thread.

Why don't you set the example and sign in then....maybe others will follow your lead.

[SAM2]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... This is another reason why some kind of unique identifier for each poster would be a good idea -- even if it only functioned at the level of the thread.

Why don't you set the example and sign in then....maybe others will follow your lead.

I've been trying to set that example for several months now, but no followers yet! Will both of you join me and login now?

If all us non-trolls start logging in, then we can identify the trolls because they'll be the only ones still anonymous. I'm waiting for you both with open arms! Anyone else is welcome too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is another reason why some kind of unique identifier for each poster would be a good idea -- even if it only functioned at the level of the thread.

Why don't you set the example and sign in then

Because I think such a system only has utility if it's required (e.g. you can't post without a screenname) or imposed (e.g. your first post generates a unique identifier that sticks with you throughout the thread). It's still game-able, but to a lesser extent, and the hijacked identities problem would probably be eliminated. I nominate this particular forum as the guinea pig if Jeff decides to experiment with such a system.

Meanwhile, having some non-sock puppeteers voluntarily identify themselves doesn't really undermine sock puppeteering.