DeaconBlues wrote:
Kalister, I have an IQ of 163, if that sort of thing is important to you. What I couldn't handle in high school wasn't the education, although classes proceeded at a pace so glacial as to wear on the patience of Job himself - it was the other people, my so-called "peers". Or has it somehow escaped you, despite my mentioning it in (it sometimes seems) every third post on WP, that until 1994, when I was already in my thirties, there was no such thing as Asperger's Syndrome in the United States? (That came with the publication of DSM-IV, in 1994; the first published criteria, in ICD-10, came in 1991, but were not widely recognized in the US.) I wasn't "an Aspie" in high school, or "an autistic" - I was "a weirdo", and treated as such. This treatment has not relegated me to the position of "simpleton" in my life.
Or are you deliberately trolling, trying to annoy as many people as possible by calling them names for not matching your absolutist standards?
Oh please

Thank you for missing the point, Einstein. It's entirely irresponsible to have children at such a young age, which is the main point. I wanted to put forth a counterpoint to the increasing acceptance of child birth at such a young age. Its occurred to be multiple times that having a child at her age could work, but time and again my delusion has been shattered. I have never seen a young mother be able to give the same quality of life to her child as someone a bit older.
I was not trolling, as I simply put forth my thoughts, on a public message board. Yes, I think there is a standard - the quality of life that one can give to a child.
Last edited by Kalister1 on 13 Apr 2008, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.