This is the first credible account of Audio unintended I have read. Thanks for writing it up; interesting stuff.

That's the part that caught my eye. I read it a few times then gave up.

Your little darling is so convinced they will be a millionaire professional sportsperson/musician/actor because you've always told them how 'special' they were, that they carry this overinflated sense of entitlement into the classroom along with 30 other 'special' kids.

I see this attitude in the classroom every day but I chalk it up to: * intellectual immaturity and lack of realistic future expectations * internalizing "gangsta"-style bragging * parent[s] modeling abrasive, confrontational behaviour rather than to "you're special" talk. As a general rule, my classrooms look like: 10% - want to learn 80% - warm bodies, can be kept on task if the situation is optimal. 10% - deliberately disruptive/destructive The 10% learners will learn no matter what. Sometimes they resort to iPods to drown out the chaos from the disruptives. The 10% disruptives can sometimes be reached, but usually they serve to undercut the success of the 80% "normals". The 10% disruptives that are not amenable to casual behaviour modification in the classroom (ie, cannot be altered without 100% teacher attention) need to be booted from the class until they can behave civilly. But having to send a kid out of the classroom for discipline/referral is widely regarded as signs of poor teacher performance. Why couldn't s/he keep control of the classroom, huh? I am as anti-1984 as the next guy, but I swear we need video cameras in the classroom so the parents/public/administration can see the scope of the problem.

I'd say the agreement could be that the patient is free to post about the doctor. The patient agrees that doing so allows the physician to post, in public, about the patient. This should help us identify legitimate whistleblowers from Munchhausen whackjob hypochondriacs and whiners.