>> ^DerHasisttot:

Anyone else got the feeling that this might be a "special" class?


If by special you mean ADHD hyperactive disorder class. It seems to me that most of these kids are being given a free rein to behave the way they need to even if it means not paying attention to the teacher.

I guess you missed all his other comments. How's the peanut gallery treating you?

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>


I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.
Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>



I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.

Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say? It makes your dialogue almost purely hyperbole. Slow down son and listen..the methods historians use to verify evidence for something is not an exact science..if you were to say Jesus didn't exist then you would have to say a lot of people in ancient history didn't exist either, because the evidence for Jesus is far better than someone like say Alexander the Great. It's not nonsense, it's reality..if you want to say the methods are bad then discard most of what you know about world history. If however you accept those methods then you should also accept Jesus was a historical person..your position is fairly ridiculous.

>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br> </em>

>> ^dag:

Some ADDers take offense at this popular view. They see ADD and ADHD as very specific set of symptoms that you either have or don't have - but would agree that many people have been misdiagnosed with the disorder.
I share your view however.
>> ^blankfist:
utilizing
ADD and ADHD are euphemisms for strong-willed and creative, possibly. Maybe these people are bored with the humdrum of institutionalized education or the repetitiveness of their job, and these little pills help them "fit in" and be the cog instead of the new voice or innovator.



I suppose I'll jump in here since I have been diagnosed with ADD (not the hyperactive type).

I don't think it is a well-defined condition, so it could just be a catch-all for several unrelated conditions. It's an issue that seems so simple when viewed through the lense of "common sense", but the further I've dug into the research behind it the murkier it has become.

Symptoms? Just to pick one... you know when you're thinking or reading about something and in the middle of it it reminds you of something else? How is that handled internally? How easy is it for you to quickly and consistently downgrade the importance of that sudden reference and maintain focus on the main idea of the original thought?

Imagine the mechanism(s) for controlling the importance of that new cognitive direction isn't working correctly for whatever reason, and the new direction becomes the primary direction almost instantly, unnoticeably, and in a way that completely destroys the original line of thought. Now imagine that happening two or three times per sentence while reading.

That's a state I was in for a while (to varying degrees). I wish it were something that could be overcome with effort, because I've never put more effort into anything in my life.


Causes? I have no idea. Maybe genetic, maybe environmental, maybe developmental, maybe something else? My guess is that it is largely developmental (a structural result of experience/habit), though with a smaller level of genetic and environmental influence. It's definitely affected by nutrition, sleep, exercise, meditation (etc), but those affect nearly any mental state.


All I can speak for is myself. Whatever I have/had (ADD or something else) had very real effects, and I certainly wouldn't say it stemmed from any form of "boredom". I love reading and science and math, but it's nice to be able to study something I love without suddenly realizing I'm thinking about how many screws are in a toaster and that I have no idea what I read over the past three paragraphs.



As far as whether or not ADD is a "disease" (perhaps disorder is more appropriate), I think that generally depends on how many people fit the symptoms. Is it a disorder if it affects 30% of people? What about 90%? ADD medication improves the mental performance of lots of people, but it also tends to decrease the performance of the top performers. It's a fascinating subject.

There is nothing that a little marijuana doesn't make better. Pain, insomnia, eating disorders, eyes, depression, hyperactivity, even sexual problems.

I guess if you are a paranoid schizophrenic it may be bad.

I've always thought that the drugs we use to treat ADD and ADHD are some of the main factors in the increasing number of ADD and ADHD patients. As it turns out the parents of these children really don't want anything other than their children, who are simply acting like children, to calm down. Those parents think that ADD/ADHD medicat...ions do that, so they demand those medications from their physicians.

The problem is, as most of the comments so far seem to understand, that ADD/ADHD medications are stimulants. Children who actually have sensation receptor problems seem hyperactive because they must speak loudly, and slap things instead of touching them, just to receive the same sensation that a child without ADD/ADHD does. Stimulate the child that actually has ADD/ADHD and the treatment is successful in a high percentage of cases, but stimulate the child who actually does not have ADD/ADHD then you have only increased the supposed hyperactivity of that child.

Oh shut up.

>> ^smooman:

see, this is what is wrong with todays 20-somethings generation. This video is their example of police brutality. This video is their example of rebellious protest. Ever hear of the 60's? the 50's? you want examples of police brutality and rebellion, there's lots in there. Today's "anonymous" bred protesters are lazy, directionless hippies. hell, hippies would give every one of these nancies wedgies
her response to the officer requesting she stop; "but theyre bubbles?" thats about on par with "im not touching you, im not touching you"
the protest symbolism of blowing bubbles is somewhat lost when you blow them directly in "The Mans" face. My 8 year old, hyperactive niece is less obnoxious

>> ^smooman:

see, this is what is wrong with todays 20-somethings generation. This video is their example of police brutality. This video is their example of rebellious protest. Ever hear of the 60's? the 50's? you want examples of police brutality and rebellion, there's lots in there. Today's "anonymous" bred protesters are lazy, directionless hippies. hell, hippies would give every one of these nancies wedgies
her response to the officer requesting she stop; "but theyre bubbles?" thats about on par with "im not touching you, im not touching you"
the protest symbolism of blowing bubbles is somewhat lost when you blow them directly in "The Mans" face. My 8 year old, hyperactive niece is less obnoxious


Anonymous? Really? You are comparing today's anarchists to "anonymous", a bunch of kids on sugar highs?

That's like saying today's soldiers are just fetishizing their videogame experiences. Oh wait...
http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-U-S-Apache-killing-civilians-in-Baghdad?loadcomm=1

see, this is what is wrong with todays 20-somethings generation. This video is their example of police brutality. This video is their example of rebellious protest. Ever hear of the 60's? the 50's? you want examples of police brutality and rebellion, there's lots in there. Today's "anonymous" bred protesters are lazy, directionless hippies. hell, hippies would give every one of these nancies wedgies

her response to the officer requesting she stop; "but theyre bubbles?" thats about on par with "im not touching you, im not touching you"

the protest symbolism of blowing bubbles is somewhat lost when you blow them directly in "The Mans" face. My 8 year old, hyperactive niece is less obnoxious

When I watched this vid with my other half before I read the comments I was singing praises about the dog. Yes he was hyperactive but never once did I think he was dangerous.

He seemed to understand boundaries (rather than like my friend's dog who would actually crawl all over visitors claws stratching all the way). Never once did he hurt that child and when he got up close he showed very gentle affection by licking.

Good dog indeed!

I've always hated those nasty icing-filled, low quality chocolate, headache-inducing, glycemic-index-destroying little capsules of tastes-like-cancer, but this video better go top 15 like a hyperactive ADHD 5 year old strung out on, well Cadbury's Creme Eggs.

>> ^Deano:
I haven't heard of them but isn't it odd to pose with cereal? I bet they're kooky.


The cereal seems to be a running gag: http://www.videosift.com/video/September-Earth-Wind-Fire-cover


Oh, and I just realized I had one more question:

6. Are they familiar with Lasse Gjertsen? Is the video editing inspired by him? They seem to use some of the same techniques as in i.e. Amateur and Hyperactive.

Nunchuks - crazed hyperactive ADD guy's weapon of choice.

I love that it took one hyperactive little girl to break apart 4chan...