To refuse to engage with anyone who uses of instead of have?

[ExitPursuedByAKoalaBear]

That's it.

OP didn't say anything about morality, the thread isn't about morals, and you are the only person who has used the word 'moral' until now as far as I can see.

Ah a parlour game; "debate the issue using only vocab from the OP". Novel.

ici - I diagree.

Dyslexia is partly, some would argue largely, to do with processing sounds into written language. You could easily write 'of' while thinking 'could've', because they might sound the same to you.

I promise, I'm not offended by my own genuine disability when I do this.

I don't tend to write things like 'hvae', and if I did, it would be to do with a computer keyboard (I'd never write it with a pen). But that's me personally. You're right some dyslexics would - my brother would. We're not all the same.

"People who declare they are dyslexic and fit the legal definition of disability cannot be discriminated against on that account."

Good luck proving that is what the recruiter did when he didn't choose that one CV where there were many spelling mistakes.

"Ah a parlour game; "debate the issue using only vocab from the OP". Novel."

No, this is another game. It's called "stick to the topic of the thread or start your own". We play it all the time here on MN.

It is difficult to prove, but sometimes it's enough just to make an employer aware - many don't know, and are a bit shocked that this is what they were doing.

I get this a fair bit. This thread notwithstanding, most people actually don't enjoy discriminating for the sake of it.

Not in the real world.

I think morality comes into it when people are being accused of laziness. I'd say that's a condemnation on those grounds, but understand others might not see it that way.

Recruitment has nothing to do with pleasure. It is not for enjoyment that a recruiter struggles to hire the best candidate for the job.

cote, you've misread me, I think.

I don't think I misunderstood what you wrote here: "It is difficult to prove, but sometimes it's enough just to make an employer aware - many don't know, and are a bit shocked that this is what they were doing... most people actually don't enjoy discriminating for the sake of it."

And I replied "Recruitment has nothing to do with pleasure. It is not for enjoyment that a recruiter struggles to hire the best candidate for the job."

Is an answer coming about whether you don't know what quotation marks are used for or were being intellectually dishonest when you accused me of laughing at disablism?

Yep, whoops. You misunderstood.

Reading comprehension is hard for you, isn't it?

There's that pesky phrase 'for the sake of it', isn't there?

You have to read all the pretty words, not just the ones you like.

I know what quotation marks are used for. I already explained I wasn't being intellectually dishonest - you just didn't read my post (or maybe it had too many long words?).

If I were to pick up all of your errors (not least the laughable attempt at French that you think makes you look clever), we'd be here all day.

And more to the point, it'd drag me down to your level. Which, actually, makes me feel a bit sick.

If I assume you agree with recruiters not hiring people who can't write, that post make no sense, and neither do your previous posts.

It's called "stick to the topic of the thread or start your own". We play it all the time here on MN.

Yes of course, that's scrupulously observed

Besides, I was responding to Suzanne's fascinating derail. I'm going to need a much fatter rule book.

Over half of my closest friends and romantic partners (past and current, I only have one DH!) are dyslexic. Must be something in the style of thinking which I click with. For me spelling comes easily and I know immediately if I've typed something wrong or used the wrong form.

It's true the type of and amount of spelling mistakes vary, but I have found I'm now so used to deciphering dyslexic spelling that I can spot it a mile off. And yep, most people who use "could of" or "would of" are usually not dyslexic, they just never learned that particular contraction at school and aren't aware of it.

DS is five but he literally pronounces it as "should of" with an /o/ like in "dog" and it makes me cringe a bit when I see threads like this but I'm sure he'll figure it out, he's got loads of time after all.

My own reason for raising the moral neutrality of intellecual ability Cote was that it seemed a really rather bad reason for dismissing whole posts or posters.

As opposed to bigotry, for example, which is a moral issue and would seem to be a good reason for ignoring people wholesale.

Cote: Suzanne also said that people of lower intellect than her were not worthy of her time. I've studiously ignored that line of argument as I can't quite face the tone of the thread stooping even lower but I would call it a moral judgment too.

" I already explained I wasn't being intellectually dishonest"

No, you didn't. You talked about how you disagree with me about attitudes towards spelling & grammar which is not the issue.

The issue is I said "Arf @ 'disablist'" and you replied "You find disablism especially funny, cote? How charming".

Did you not understand that I was obviously laughing at you calling Exit 'disablist' and not at disablism itself? >> You don't know what quotation marks mean.

Or

Did you understand what I was saying perfectly well but thought you would accuse me of laughing at disablism to score a point? >> You were being intellectually dishonest.

So, which was it? Do tell.

"(or maybe it had too many long words?)"

LOL, that's a pathetic attempt at a comeback

"Suzanne also said that people of lower intellect than her were not worthy of her time"

Actually, what she said is "I am strongly disinclined to engage (for purposes of recreation) with a person whose manner of speech indicates that we are unlikely to have any common ground and/or that the exchange will be unrewarding to either or both parties." Most (if not all) of us do this, sometimes if not on a regular basis.

How very undignified! Cor blimey does it really matter all that much?

If anyone here still doubts what I said re recruiters, take a look at this thread currently running in Chat.

Among a recruiter's "top tips for grads":

Please write in English using the correct spelling and grammar. Do not write "i" instead or "I" because I will not progress your application.

That's not all she said Cote. She said;

If I see 'of' rather than 'have' I think 'thicko' and I don't bother to read the post.

it's just heuristics, a quick way of weeding out the dross