Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:48:43 +0000 (UTC)
real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote in
news:1iqedap.1j0l9551d0wqs5N%real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nigel <useweb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:gfh252$hdp$1@xxxxxxxx:[snip]
Mandy wrote:
I think the test thing meant 11-13 not 9-11
though! :o)
H'mmm, thirteen qualifies as a fully fledged teen, doesn't
it?
Only just! lol
13-18 years old - those six years are the teenaged years. It's
not `only just' teenaged when you're 13 - it's `exactly in the
teenaged range'.
What about 19 year olds?
Durr. Yes, quite right. Call me an idiot.
Nope, just human!
<glowers> Nope, making a mistake like that is very very stupid of me.
I plead tiredness due to lack of sleep.
I hope you get more sleep tonight!
[snip]
Childrens' books when I was young usually had a suggested age
range printed on the back[1]. Everyone I knew read books that
were `far too old for them' according to adult judgement. My
conclusion was that the standard judgement of adults on what's
suitable for what age of child is wrong.
By the sound of it that test is wrong too!
It's wrong in what it says, but that doesn't mean it's *useless*.
The trick is to figure out how to use the analysis you get. But I
don't know what to make of these numbers.
Me either!
You mean `neither'.
Do I? OK then :o)
I'd want more than just a single numerical score from a machine
analysis of my writing if I wanted to make use of that analysis.
Too right! I was just after a guide though :o)
There's no point in following a bad guide which leads you astray.
Better to follow your own nose than use a guide like that, I'd say.
Okey dokes!
Apparently, my prose (the chunk I just tried) needs 15 years of
formal eduated to read it easily! - according to the Gunning Fog
Index.
Blimey!
That means the index states that if you've only had school up to
16, it's beyond you. It's not until you're in your second year
of university that you can expect to be able to read it,
allegedly.
I don't know what you put in but not everyone goes to Uni (me and
Steve are 2 examples)
This is the text that I threw at it. You tell me if you can read
it okay. If you can, your reading ability is better than you
`ought' to have according to the on-line analysis you're using for
your own writing, since you've not had enough education to be able
to cope. Allegedly. (see why I say `bollocks' to this stuff?)
Too right!
[snip]
I want to ensure that the truth about events is known so that I am
not treated badly by NHS staff in the future.
====================================================================
===
It sounds like they mistreated you badly! :o(
Yep - and you could read it okay, couldn't you? Despite not having
had the college education that the reading analyser claimed you need
to be able to understand it.
Too right! I guess we just have a better level of understanding English
over here but over the pond in America it's totally different?
[snip]
Okay, UK literacy is worse than it used to be, but still...
I guess some people just never "get" reading and writing :o(
<shrug> The problems are down to poor education and poor homes. If
you've got decent education and books at home, you'll `get' reading.
Writing's a trickier skill - which in any case a lot of people don't
bother practicing at all.
Too right!
[snip]
I can't think of any way of doing it short of something like
actually visiting a school and reading the stories out and seeing
how they go down - for example.
I can't afford a CRB check though :o(
Oh yeah, I forgot about all that crap. Damn.
I've got no problem having it done at all... I just can't afford it :o(
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Stay Safe, Mandy
Money talks, chocolate sings
http://mandy2.bravehost.com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- References:
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Loz
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Evil_Nigel
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Evil_Nigel
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Evil_Nigel
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Evil_Nigel
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: nigel
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: nigel
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Mandy
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- Prev by Date: Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- Next by Date: Here I go again...
- Previous by thread: Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- Next by thread: Re: Children - OT, sorry!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading