Since you decided to make it public ...
Don
You have publically mentioned the fact of our having talked on
the phone. Our only conversations were when I signed onto this
list in the first place and when I had trouble getting the messages.
Our last phone conversation was over a week ago.
After you became uncomfortable with my public comments about your
daughter's F/C program, you decided to call it harrassment. If
you follow through on your threat to delete me from this list, it
will become quite obvious to everyone else that you don't believe
in the free exchange of ideas the way you pretend to.
If you would rather have someone else talk with your daughter by
modem, that's FINE with me. If I have to wait a half hour for
a reply, then I'd rather talk with someone in an area that can be
reached by a cut-rate carrier.
If you decide to give up the idea of your daughter talking with someone
by modem, then it's YOUR loss. A couple of others have already
written to me privately expressing an interest in what I am proposing.
Incidentally, interactive conversation can be done on CompuServe
and by other means which do not involve giving me any name or phone
number. Therefore, nothing you can possibly say about me can possibly
give anyone second thoughts about communicationg with me.
Jim Sinclair
disregard requests to respect other people's private communications, I
am going to reply publicly to the latest round of venom you sent to my
mailbox. I do this for several reasons: Because I choose not to spend
my personal time accepting offensive communications from you, and I am
affirming my right to delete unread any unwanted private messages.
Because I perceive that you are using concerns about "confidentiality" and
"anonymity" as a way to isolate people so no one can figure out what
you're up to, which is a typical pattern of emotional predators and can
only be broken when someone breaks the silence. Because I want there to
be witnesses to what I have to say to you, so if you should decide to
misrepresent this communication to others, there will be many people who
can set the record straight.
First of all, I am under no obligation to send you the newsletter or
anything else. I can simply destroy your uncashed check. Furthermore,
even if the check had already been cashed, I would be under no obligation
to send you the newsletter, because your attempts to contact other autistic
people under yet another assumed name are in violation of the terms of
your probationary membership in ANI, which you yourself proposed in a
message dated March 1.
Secondly, I have not yet made a decision as to how to proceed with you
in ANI--although spending one evening away from my computer and returning
the next day to find three accusatory messages from you because, as near
as I can figure, you didn't think I was paying enough attention to you
certainly leads me to doubt that you have grasped the most essential
requirement for healthy interaction that I have tried to explain to you
over the past few months: respect for other people's boundaries. Also,
your statement that you had taken down the Internet addresses of all the
list subscribers and would continue to communicate with them even if you
are removed from this list for harassment (which, by the way, would not
be a decision to which I would be a party, as I am not responsible for
managing this list) raises concerns about whether you would attempt to
make uninvited and inappropriate contacts with ANI members if you were
to become dissatisfied with correspondence in the newsletter.
Thirdly, no one, to my knowledge, has been carrying on a smear campaign
against you here. I certainly have not participated in any such campaign.
Nor has my opinion about you been swayed by any unsubstantiated
allegations by others. My opinion is based on my own experience with you
and on what you have told me about yourself. By your own reports, you
have been a habitual perpetrator of harassment, threats, lies, and verbal
abuse for longer than I've been alive. You indicated a willingness to
explore social skills training and to refrain from unsupervised contacts
with other autistic people until you had developed the ability to control
your temper and to interact non-abusively with others. It was on that
basis that I was willing to correspond with you (on *my* time, as *my*
schedule permits) and to try to find a way for you to be involved in ANI
without compromising the safety or comfort of others who have already
been hurt by you. I supported your participation because I felt (and
still feel) that you have some good ideas and are capable of making some
valuable contributions. I have talked to several people who have been
traumatized by you in the past, and tried to persuade them to give you a
chance to participate on a probationary basis. They showed varying degrees
of concern and trepidation, but they *ALL* agreed to give you a chance.
(Frankly, that surprised even me.) We wanted to give you a chance because
we do see you as someone who has something to add to our network, and
because, much as we deplore your behavior, we do understand the hardships
you've encountered. But you're not doing your part. And unless you can
make some drastic changes in your behavior, the cost of your participation
will outweigh the benefits.
If you continue to mistreat people, people will continue to not want to
communicate with you. You may be removed from this list (again, that's
not my decision), as you have been removed from other computer forums
before. You may indeed continue to contact people through Internet--and
if you do so abusively, the people will complain and you may lose your
Internet account. This is not a threat, merely an explanation of a
cause and effect relationship. Nobody else needs to portray you as a
"dangerous psychopath" for people to decide they don't want to communicate
with you. You're quite effective at giving that impression and having
that effect all by yourself. It's only taken you a few weeks to accomplish
it here.
Ultimately, there are two possibilities: Either you will continue to
repeat your habitual patterns of inappropriate behavior, and continue to
be rejected (not because you're autistic, but because you're demanding,
intrusive, and obnoxious); or you will learn to treat people appropriately
and have a chance at finding lasting acceptance. It's up to you. I have
no interest in hurting you, frustrating you, monitoring you, policing you,
or, frankly, even thinking about you. You're going to do what you're
going to do, and it's not my problem. ANI *is* my problem, though, and
in accepting the responsibility for coordinating ANI I also accept the
responsibility for dealing with people in an organizational context that
I might prefer not to deal with on a personal basis. If you're going to
receive the newsletter, I will need some assurance that your behavior is
under control. Your word alone is no longer sufficient for me. I am
willing to consider suggestions. I am not willing to receive any more
threats or accusations directed against me or others.
JS
D...@sjuvm.bitnet
I have some serious concerns. There will be no flame wars on this list.
Save them for private messages. Ray and I will turn this into a moderated
list where inappropriate messages will be filtered, rather than allow
Autism to become a Forum for Flames.
Don, I am not here to evaluate the validity of anything Jim said, but
if you don't like ANI the way he has decided to structure it, then
create an organization structured the way you like. Jim, private
messages should remain private.
Bob Zenhausern, Ph.D.
St. John's University Bitnet: d...@sjuvm.bitnet
SB 15 Marillac Phone: 718-990-6447
Jamaica, NY 11439 Fax: 718-990-6705
Don
Everyone on this network has seen that you have fallen a little bit
short in respecting the privacy of others. You have no qualms about
mentioning your conversations with Donna Williams and others. Those
people have placed a certain amount of trust in you, but they have
not joined this network and seen what you have posted here! To
properly earn that kind of trust, you might have to take a few angry
notes in private without publically denigrating them.
Talk about using aliases, "Jim Sinclair" is not your real name; and
it never was. If Donna Williams and Kathy and the others were to see
what you have posted publically on this list, they would see that you
aren't any less of an emotional predator than I am!
No organization among autistic individuals will ever form if self-pity
and past suicide threats somehow disqualify them from associating
with each other. If you have been raped, as you say you have,
then can you honestly say that the thought of suicide *never* crossed
your mind? Let's cut out this hoier-than-thou crap!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, my contacting other users of this Autism List has
nothing to do with any understanding between you and me about the ANI.
I promissed not to use an assumed name in contacting other ANI
members, whose address or phone number might just happen to appear
in your newsletter. But the users of this List know full well that
their INTERNET or BITNET addresses are displayed with everything
they post.
A few prospective members of the ANI did start hanging up on me, as
a result of my expressed self-pity. If they are willing to accept me in
the organization, then they evidently realize that nobody is perfect.
Give them credit for having some intelligence, for God's sake! I never
expected the ANI to be free of jealousy and in-fighting, but it's a
hell of a lot better than the previously-existing situation of there
being no way to be heard. The other prospective members evidently feel
the same way.
D...@sjuvm.bitnet
You have made your rejoinder. Enough from all sides. Privacy is
the best policy.
Jim Sinclair
It is not my intention to start a flame war on this list, but to end one.
Regarding the allegations Don has made about me on this list (and since
he did make them publicly, I feel I am entitled to respond to them in the
same forum) I do understand the differences between public and private
communications. When I refer to personal contacts with individuals, even
if those individuals are not subscribers to this list, it is with the
permission of those individuals. Other times I may describe conversations
and events in broad general terms, with no identifying information about
the people involved, so that again, people's privacy is not violated.
When individuals behave abusively, however, a different set of rules
applies. As a teacher, I have certain responsibilities regarding the
confidentiality of my students and their families. But if I have reason
to believe that a child is being abused, I am not only permitted but
*required* to report my observations. As a private citizen, if I know--
not just on hearsay but on the basis of my own experience or observations--
that someone represents a danger to others, then I have a moral if not a
legal obligation to report what I know. The situation with Don falls into
this category: It is my perception, based on my experience with him, that
he consistently behaves in ways that are hurtful to others. Other people
of course are free to draw their own conclusions based on their own
observations. I have fulfilled my own ethical obligations; if anyone
else on this list has a hurtful experience with Don, it will not be because
I failed to report what I knew.
I also wish to make it perfectly clear that I do *not* agree to have
any further private communications with this person, and that if he does
contact me privately again, I will share the content of any material I
feel uncomfortable keeping secret. (There's a simple guideline taught to
children about how to identify "bad secrets": If you or somebody else gets
hurt because of a secret, then it's a bad secret and you have to tell
it to someone. When the sight of a particular account number in the
address field of an incoming private message causes my stomach to tie up
in a knot, then I know there are bad secrets in the background.) Knowing
my position on this, it is entirely up to him whether he chooses to contact
me again. I have not been the one to initiate contacts with him in the
past and I have no intention of initiating contacts with him in the future,
so unless he initiates something, there will be no further contacts to
flame about.
Regarding my use of a pen name to keep my private life distinct from my
public communications, I have never denied this or made a secret of it.
Jim Sinclair is clearly identified as a pen name in the published book
containing my essay. People who know me on a personal basis know my real
name. People who know me only through public forums like this list don't
need to know what my real name is, but if they ask, I readily acknowledge
that Jim Sinclair is a pseudonym. I also allow other people to use
pseudonyms in ANI if they have similar concerns about privacy. The
difference is that I use a pseudonym only to protect my own privacy against
unwanted intrusions by strangers, not to avoid being recognized by people
who already know me and might have reasonable concerns about dealing with
me. People who don't know me don't know my real name, but people who *do*
know me on a personal basis *do* know my pseudonym.
JS