Welcome to AUE, once again
Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath
version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
- Daniel al-Autistiqui
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath: a/k/a "Govende"
I have the developmental disability Autism.
To e-mail me, remove the six upper-case letters at
the beginning of my address.
[This signature is under construction.]
Tony Cooper
<AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
>version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
>of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
>the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
>alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
>been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
>
>Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
>about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
>cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
>down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
>posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
>newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
>
>- Daniel al-Autistiqui
Welcome back. I feel somewhat responsible. I just used "sans" in an
earlier post. The call is strong.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Sara Lorimer
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
> version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
> of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
> the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
> alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
> been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
Hi Daniel -- congratulations on getting back to Usenet.
--
SML
Areff
Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende!
Welcome back, Daniel!
Charles Riggs
That should be, of course, "Hi, Daniel".
Hi, Daniel. Welcome back.
--
Charles Riggs
Harvey Van Sickle
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free
> Agent version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went
> through all of the necessary steps for its configuration,
> including a setting for the Italian NNTP server suggested by
> Skitt. So welcome back to alt.usage.english from the autistic
> young man who has since Oct. 2003 been residing at a certain
> facility in Binghamton!!
Well done -- welcome back!
I hope your Mum's doing well, too -- pass along sincere best wishes to
her.
> Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just
> before about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting
> today--is the cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when
> you are to scroll down in certain places (in particular the area
> where the bodies of the posted messages are displayed, though not
> the same thing with names of newsgroups or subject lines of the
> messages)?
Not sure about that, as I don't use Forté, but it will be interesting
to hear from the users of that program if it's expected behaviour.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Martin Ambuhl
> Why did you go through the dramatics to welcome yourself back to the
> AUE? That's even like worse than Tony Cooper.
Learn some manners, Joey. Daniel is a friend of AUE who has had
difficulties that are beyond your comprehension. Save your snide
assholisms for others.
Don Aitken
Mine doesn't, but I have 1.93. The have been complaints about the fact
that Agent, unlike some apps, does not change the cursor shape to
indicate insert/overstrike status, but I don't think they put that in
2.0. Somebody else here must be using it - any offers?
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Mike Stanton
<AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote
>Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
>about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
>cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
>down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
>posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
>newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
Yes.
--
mike stanton
serving neither God nor Mammon on the lonely planet.
R H Draney
Joey's got difficulties of his own, not least of which is that many people don't
"get" him (including me about forty percent of the time)....
Truth be told, I've been kind of looking forward to witnessing this particular
meeting of minds...Steve Allen should only have put together such a
combination....
Oh, and it's implicit in the above, but I'll spell it out anyway: Welcome back,
Daniel!...r
Skitt
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
> version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
> of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
> the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt.
I'm glad I was able to be of some assistance. Welcome back!
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
John Dean
> version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
> of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
> the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
> alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
> been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
Yay Daniel! Great to see you back.
>
> - Daniel al-Autistiqui
Love it. Never change.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Pat Durkin
"Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath" <AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8k4dd1dk5q1rn5han...@4ax.com...
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
> version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
> of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
> the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
> alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
> been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
>
> Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
> about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
> cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
> down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
> posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
> newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
>
Welcome back, Daniel. I must say, you sound extraordinarily cheerful and
upbeat. A breath of fresh air, I must say.
Pat
>
Robin Bignall
wrote:
(Welcome back, Daniel).
Agent 2 has a vertical I-bar cursor at all times. "Overstrike" is
denoted by an "OVR" in a box bottom RHS of screen. Box is blank in
"Insert" mode.
--
Robin
Hoddesdon, England
Robert Lieblich
>
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
> version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
> of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
> the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
> alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
> been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
It's great to see you back, Daniel. I hope you have lots of fun
reading the group and posting to it. I wouldn't be at all surprised
to see a Govende thread start in your honor. The only problem is ...
What *is* Govende?
--
Bob Lieblich
Delighted!
Jitze Couperus
<AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yo Daniel !
You're back - and I detect you are in very fine fettle as I
notice you signed yourself as
>
>- Daniel al-Autistiqui
>
Cracked me up so bad I nearly blew coffee over the
keyboard. A really warped sense of humor is a joy
to behold...
Glad you could rejoin the ranks.
Jitze
Hylander
Jitze Couperus wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:22:02 -0400, "Daniel G. \"Govende\" McGrath"
> <AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yo Daniel !
>
> You're back - and I detect you are in very fine fettle as I
> notice you signed yourself as
>
> >
> >- Daniel al-Autistiqui
> >
>
> Cracked me up so bad I nearly blew coffee over the
> keyboard. A really warped sense of humor is a joy
> to behold...
Could you elucidate us more on the joke please? I also enjoy a good
laugh.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I got the joke, but I'm puzzling over "elucidate us more". It should
have been written sans "us more".
Hylander
Er...not necessarily. I found it already partially elucidating and I
felt that we, (most people that I am guessing who have been reading
this), would like to be elucidated / explained to further or can I not
use it in quite the same usage as a verb like illuminate (which the
word seems to resemble semantically and nearly syntactically (AFAICT)
as well).
John
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>> >Could you elucidate us more on the joke please? I also enjoy a good
>> >laugh.
>>
>> I got the joke, but I'm puzzling over "elucidate us more". It should
>> have been written sans "us more".
>>
>
>Er...not necessarily. I found it already partially elucidating and I
>felt that we, (most people that I am guessing who have been reading
>this), would like to be elucidated / explained to further or can I not
>use it in quite the same usage as a verb like illuminate (which the
>word seems to resemble semantically and nearly syntactically (AFAICT)
>as well).
It's an awkward use. You want some elucidation, but you aren't
illuminated by asking for us to become more lucid. You want the
writer of the joke, or someone else, to provide a lucid explanation.
The "sans" is a bit rude on my part since it's an "in" joke regarding
Daniel.
Richard Bollard
<AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
>version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
>of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
>the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
>alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
>been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
>
>Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
>about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
>cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
>down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
>posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
>newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
>
Hi Daniel. Welcome back.
I never noticed the cursor thing but you are right. For me, the cursor
is an arrow over the other "pointing to things" panes but becomes an
I-bar when it hovers over the text of a message (even though you can't
insert anything until after you tell the programme to let you write a
reply). Maybe the designers were thinking ahead about what the likely
next step would be for the reader.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra, Australia
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
Jitze Couperus
wrote:
>
>
Whoosh...
Kind of destroys the joke if you have to explain it.... especialy if
it is too subtle for you in the first place. But consider that
"A Satiric Tabu" is an anagram of "An Autistic Arab" and you
may get some of the flavor...
Jitze
K. Edgcombe
Welcome back, Daniel!
Katy (there are two Katys here now, but the other one posts as Wood Avens)
Charles Riggs
It has those features, and the spelling checker bug has been fixed,
apparently, but since it sucks donkey dongs for other reasons, I've
stayed with good old 1.93.
--
Charles Riggs
Wood Avens
Welcome back from me too, Daniel. You've been missed.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
M. J. Powell
\"Govende\" McGrath" <AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> writes
>Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
>version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
>of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
>the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
>alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
>been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
>
>Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
>about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
>cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
>down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
>posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
>newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
A warm welcome, Daniel.
Others more learned than I will answer the technical bit.
Mike
Robin Bignall
wrote:
Don't blame you. The extra few bucks didn't buy any new function that
was useful to me, and we're still awaiting the next version that will
support multiple news servers. In my case the need for such has gone
away, because the useful NTL groups, which were private in the past,
are now on news.individual.
--
Robin
Hoddesdon, England
kungfumaster...@yahoo.com
he never wuz any good with english....
John Dean
> On 14 Jul 2005 22:34:30 -0700, "Hylander" <john....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Could you elucidate us more on the joke please? I also enjoy a good
>>>> laugh.
>>>
>>> I got the joke, but I'm puzzling over "elucidate us more". It
>>> should have been written sans "us more".
>>>
>>
>> Er...not necessarily. I found it already partially elucidating and I
>> felt that we, (most people that I am guessing who have been reading
>> this), would like to be elucidated / explained to further or can I
>> not use it in quite the same usage as a verb like illuminate (which
>> the word seems to resemble semantically and nearly syntactically
>> (AFAICT) as well).
>
> It's an awkward use. You want some elucidation, but you aren't
> illuminated by asking for us to become more lucid. You want the
> writer of the joke, or someone else, to provide a lucid explanation.
I Love Lucid.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:22:02 -0400, "Daniel G. \"Govende\" McGrath"
><AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
>>version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
>>of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
>>the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
>>alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
>>been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
>>
[...]
>>- Daniel al-Autistiqui
>
>Welcome back. I feel somewhat responsible. I just used "sans" in an
>earlier post. The call is strong.
Oh, boy: here we go again. This is now reminding me of O*** K**yy**;
I had considerable interest in that guy during the time I was away,
but I have learned to stay away from the dangers of constantly having
problems over his literature. Apparently it gave me a whole new view
on "sans". But it seems I'm afraid to actually explain that.
Would you rather hear about another word, one that has actually
fascinated me since about 2000 but never so much that I got to tell
anyone online? At the moment this word is unfortunately causing me
problems (as with the abovementioned O***). Maybe Dr. Montazem (a
legendary fellow better known to my mother) could tell you what the
word is. :-)
I'm not in my programming classroom on weekends, so don't expect me to
write anything more until at least Monday.
- Daniel al-Autistiqui
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath: a/k/a "Govende"
I have the developmental disability Autism.
To e-mail me, remove the six upper-case letters at
the beginning of my address.
[This signature is under construction.]
Mickwick
>Would you rather hear about another word, one that has actually
>fascinated me since about 2000 but never so much that I got to tell
>anyone online?
Why nods the drowsy worshipper outside? Welcome within!
> At the moment this word is unfortunately causing me
>problems (as with the abovementioned O***). Maybe Dr. Montazem (a
>legendary fellow better known to my mother) could tell you what the
>word is. :-)
Nope. Giss another clue.
--
Mickwick
An irrelevant resource:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cath/congress/2002/programme/paper_index.shtml
Donna Richoux
> In alt.usage.english, Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
>
> >Would you rather hear about another word, one that has actually
> >fascinated me since about 2000 but never so much that I got to tell
> >anyone online?
>
> Why nods the drowsy worshipper outside? Welcome within!
>
> > At the moment this word is unfortunately causing me
> >problems (as with the abovementioned O***). Maybe Dr. Montazem (a
> >legendary fellow better known to my mother) could tell you what the
> >word is. :-)
>
> Nope. Giss another clue.
From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli? That guy?
kungfumaster...@yahoo.com
isn't that what Rickey Ricardo said??
> --
> John Dean
> Oxford
Hylander
Why does it destroy the joke? You have to explain it to yourself (or
piece it together in your mind at least) don't you?
--
John, early 30s, male, dx'd autistic.
AS! d>^v^ s+:++>-- a c++>+++++ p+! t@ f++ S++ pol@ e++ h+ r++ n*>n++ i++
P+++ m++>++ M>M++++
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.autism/browse_frm/month/2004-12?start=250&hl=en
R H Draney
>
>From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli? That guy?
"And the great king Montezuma, who once said 'will someone tell those Marines to
stop singing in the halls?', never got a mention."
- Red Buttons
(Sometimes it takes *two* to know one)....r
Mike Stanton
wrote
snip
This thread is currently cross-posted with alt.support.autism (asa). I
have removed the cross-posting to warn you that the above poster is
our resident troll and that another participant in this thread,
Hylander, has been targeted in the past by the troll.
Perhaps you could help by removing cross-posts to asa from your
replies in this thread. ISTM that you are welcoming the return of an
old friend and do not need asa gatecrashers to spoil the party.
--
mike stanton
serving neither God nor Mammon on the lonely planet.
de...@aol.com
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> de...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Why did you go through the dramatics to welcome yourself back to the
> > AUE? That's even like worse than Tony Cooper.
>
> Learn some manners, Joey. Daniel is a friend of AUE who has had
> difficulties that are beyond your comprehension. Save your snide
> assholisms for others.
MY "snide assholisms", Abdul? Look, we've ALL got problems! I have
relatives and know people whose mental issues make minor autism look
like it's a gift! Did you ever think that a good number of mental
"disorders" might just happen to be SOCIETY-INDUCED??? If Riggs'
bipolarism can be aided through SOCIETAL SUPPORT, and YOUR
assholeishness can be reduced by SOCIETAL NOT-ACCEPTING-IT, and
alcholism and depression and OCD and bulemia, etc, etc can ALL be
removed by changes in SOCIETAL VIEWS, and, in short, by simply treating
a "mental" person like they're actually a PERSON, then why can't we
accept the same with autism? The autistics I know have barely been
able to string a sentence together. I think it is far more likely that
Daniel has ASPBERGER'S disorder, which is something that you all should
be very familiar with, as newcomers have often commented that your
photo gallery looks like an Aspberger's convention.
You're basically treating him like he is NOT a person! Anyone else
makes a showy, non-English related post like that and you're all on top
of them as being trolls, spammers, retarts, and whatnot. How's about
actually trying to WORK with Daniel to do what you believe people here
"should" do, rather than just treating him like a moron?
Or is all this beyond your comprehension? (Most likely.)
de...@aol.com
Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
> Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! >
> - Daniel al-Autistiqui
I did not see this before, otherwise I would have commented. Why do
you let yourself be defined by your "disorder"? It's like Draney
said--he hit the nail on the head--EVERYONE's got issues, everyone here
probably more so than the typical person. He was also right that I
have greatly wanted to meet you, and to help you. You seem, to me, to
be an interesting person. Not an interesting autistic person, or an
interesting gay person, or an interesting retarded middle-aged black
schizophrenic who sings songs about having sex with Batman and Alanis
Morissette. But, just an interesting person period. You let these
people here push you around. They needed an "explanation", a
justification, for why you are the way you are and why you believe what
you believe. Luckily for you (or maybe not so luckily), your mother,
after months and months of trying, finally managed to convince them
that you were "autistic". You act the way you do not because you are a
unique individual who just so happens to be different and do things
differently than the average person here; you act the way you do
because you're "abnormal" due to some "disease". That is what they
want you to think, anyways! And as long as they can pigeonhole you
like that, then they're fine with you saying and doing as you please.
However, if some clueless shrink had not diagnosed you with this
"problem" and you behaved here in the exact same manner as you have
been, these people would not only not like you, they'd actively oppose
you, your posting style, your personality, and your beliefs. I have
seen it done before. For all anyone knows, CJ could be some
middle-aged Asian woman who lives next door to Bun Mui, is fatter and
uglier than JoAnne Marinelli, is butcher than John Goodman, has no arms
or legs and moves around like a combination of one of those "chicken"
things that KFC used to use that aren't really chickens and Slimer from
Ghostbusters if he couldn't fly, and is Jay Stevens' love whore. Now,
this person has a pretty awful life, but maybe the one thing that makes
her happy, the one way that she can really, truly get off [because we
all know that she's boinking Jay Stevens], is to impersonate little 13
year old boys with abusive parents in English usage groups on the net.
But, did ANYONE assume this about CJ? NO! They assumed that it was
Riggs or Rey Aman or Janet Reno trying to get his jollies! Now,
wouldn't you feel bad for the Marinelli-ish Slimer blob who's banging
Jay Stevens if your momma only knew?
If CJ had his choice, he would probably leave you all alone! He'd
probably curse you out, and unplug his phone! But, he didn't have a
choice! Instead of trying to HELP it with its problems, you made it
feel worse by harassing him! Now, with Daniel, instead of trying to
help HIM, you first hurt him by harassing him, NOW you're hurting him
by treating him like he's retarded!
You SHOULD be treating EVERYONE EQUALLY!
de...@aol.com
Mike Stanton wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2005 12:02:05 -0700, kungfumaster...@yahoo.com
> wrote
>
> snip
>
> This thread is currently cross-posted with alt.support.autism (asa). I
> have removed the cross-posting to warn you that the above poster is
> our resident troll and that another participant in this thread,
> Hylander, has been targeted in the past by the troll.
>
> Perhaps you could help by removing cross-posts to asa from your
> replies in this thread. ISTM that you are welcoming the return of an
> old friend and do not need asa gatecrashers to spoil the party.
>
OK, so let me get this straight: give me ONE reason why HE should be
considered a "troll" for making an (albeit gay) I Love Lucy joke in an
English usage forum, but Daniel's non-English related vanity post
should NOT be considered a form of "trolling"?
Rowe Rickenbacker
> John Dean wrote:
>
>> Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel al-Autistiqui
>>
>> Love it. Never change.
>
> How DARE you? Would you say that to someone with cancer or AIDS?
Whether he has cancer or AIDs doesn't really affect his autism.
> Oh, the disease gon' kill you
Autism has never (directly) killed anyone yet.
Tom
--
War of the ghostland take your souls
but give us freedom once and for all
...firestorm!
Under the rain of a thousand flames
We face the real pain falling in vain
while the dark angel screams for vengeance
in the dead shadow of falling stars!
-"Rain of a Thousand Flames", Rhapsody
de...@aol.com
Your jokes are even gayer than a three-way between Richard Simmons,
Charo, and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.
de...@aol.com
Mike Stanton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:22:02 -0400, "Daniel G. \"Govende\" McGrath"
> <AUTISMg...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >Right now I am rather concerned about something I noticed just before
> >about my newsreader, at least the way it is acting today--is the
> >cursor really supposed to form an "I-bar" shape when you are to scroll
> >down in certain places (in particular the area where the bodies of the
> >posted messages are displayed, though not the same thing with names of
> >newsgroups or subject lines of the messages)?
>
> Yes.
> --
> mike stanton
> serving neither God nor Mammon on the lonely planet.
Who's Mammon?
de...@aol.com
He's ARAB? I thought he was British!
de...@aol.com
You're an ex-autistic? You had Aspbergers?
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Hylander wrote:
>
>> John, early 30s, male, dx'd autistic.
>
> You're an ex-autistic?
Not until he dies.
> You had Aspbergers?
It's spelt "Aspergers".
de...@aol.com
Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
> de...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > John Dean wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
> >>
> >>> Daniel al-Autistiqui
> >>
> >> Love it. Never change.
> >
> > How DARE you? Would you say that to someone with cancer or AIDS?
>
> Whether he has cancer or AIDs doesn't really affect his autism.
>
> > Oh, the disease gon' kill you
>
> Autism has never (directly) killed anyone yet.
>
> Tom
> --
But, if we are looking at it as a "problem", then should it not be
CURED? Obesity or bulemia or anxiety attacks or even that thing that
Marinelli has have never directly killed anyone either. Yet, as
diseases and mental "disorders", cures are sought for them. If people
had a choice, NO ONE would be born with a debilitating illness OR
genetic mutation! Hells, the ONLY GENETIC MUTATION *I* want is
something that makes me either be psychic or FLY.
de...@aol.com
Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
> de...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hylander wrote:
> >
> >> John, early 30s, male, dx'd autistic.
> >
> > You're an ex-autistic?
>
> Not until he dies.
How do YOU know? Maybe he was cuizzored!
>
> > You had Aspbergers?
>
> It's spelt "Aspergers".
Tell that to the AUE!
S_chuber_t
de...@aol.com wrote:
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
> > de...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Hylander wrote:
> > >
> > >> John, early 30s, male, dx'd autistic.
> > >
> > > You're an ex-autistic?
> >
> > Not until he dies.
>
> How do YOU know? Maybe he was cuizzored!
are you sure you don't mean Cuisenarted? AFter all everyone want to
blend in sometimes...
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
>
>> de...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> John Dean wrote:
>>>
>>>> Love it. Never change.
>>>
>>> How DARE you? Would you say that to someone with cancer or AIDS?
>>
>> Whether he has cancer or AIDs doesn't really affect his autism.
>>
>>> Oh, the disease gon' kill you
>>
>> Autism has never (directly) killed anyone yet.
>
> But, if we are looking at it as a "problem", then should it not be
> CURED?
Hint: I don't see my autism as a problem.
> Obesity or bulemia or anxiety attacks or even that thing that
> Marinelli has have never directly killed anyone either. Yet, as
> diseases and mental "disorders", cures are sought for them.
Yes, because they threaten people's health. Autism doesn't pose a threat
to myself, though insensitive idiots who don't understand me have posed
a threat to me in the past. I'd rather have them "CURED".
> If people had a choice, NO ONE would be born with a debilitating
> illness OR genetic mutation!
Autism isn't a genetic *mutation* any more than having brown eyes is a
genetic mutation. It's merely a different brain structure, and sometimes
it grows in a way that causes people problems, but the syndrome in and
of itself is not a bad thing. Indeed, most of the people I've talked to
who have the "problems" are still far happier that they were born and
allowed to live their lives than treated like animals that needed to be
put down. Why should any human be allowed to make that decision about
any other human based only on knowledge about one or two genes?
> Hells, the ONLY GENETIC MUTATION *I* want is something that makes me
> either be psychic or FLY.
Would you really want to be psychic? Seriously - that would cause more
problems than it would fix. No "mutation" is only single-sided.
Philip W Lee at hyphen dot dot
to write:
A difference is NOT a disorder.
if you're going to post crap like this to a sutism group, please put
ASSHOLE on the subject line.
<plonk>
--
Autistic Spectrum Code v.1.0
AS! d-(pu)@ s-: a42 c+++(++) p+ t-(++)@ f-(---) S+(++) p@ e++ h+ r++ n+(--) i++(+) P m+() M(++)
ASC Decoder at <http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/>
Kung Fu Master Qui Chang Dobey
I don't whant to be psychic but I woulnd't mind having a sigh chick!
Philip W Lee at hyphen dot dot
to write:
If you insist:
Technically, it should have an apostrophe, since it is derived from
the physician who first studied it, Hans Asperger.
However, the apostrophe is not commonly used.
Have you learned anything useful in AUE?
mark
(de...@aol.com) was heard to remark...
> Mike Stanton wrote:
<snip: kungfumaster...@yahoo.com is a troll in asa />
> > Perhaps you could help by removing cross-posts to asa from your
> > replies in this thread. ISTM that you are welcoming the return of an
> > old friend and do not need asa gatecrashers to spoil the party.
>
> OK, so let me get this straight: give me ONE reason why HE should be
> considered a "troll" for making an (albeit gay) I Love Lucy joke in an
That's not what Mike's saying. He's saying kungfumasterpomdiddlypom
here is a troll in the autism ng, and that we should be wary of
welcoming him to aue with open arms because of a poor joke.
As in, he was a troll first, lame joker later. Chicken and egg, my
young killfile escapee.
> English usage forum, but Daniel's non-English related vanity post
> should NOT be considered a form of "trolling"?
That's the danger of being a newbie. Daniel's an old, old regular (he
was around last time I was here, IIRC), and a lot of long-timers have
missed him. What's wrong with him saying "hey, I'm back"?
Do you intend to follow up with a "who gives a shit, asshole" response?
--
"Sometimes we have to wait for the cutting edge to catch up."
- Cecil Adams, /Return of the Straight Dope/
mark
remark...
> de...@aol.com considered 15 Jul 2005 18:01:24 -0700 the perfect time
> to write:
> >Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
> >> It's spelt "Aspergers".
> >
> >Tell that to the AUE!
>
> If you insist:
> Technically, it should have an apostrophe, since it is derived from
> the physician who first studied it, Hans Asperger.
> However, the apostrophe is not commonly used.
>
> Have you learned anything useful in AUE?
We pray for his soul daily. Except the atheists, who pray for his sole
(nobody should go out into the grim, dark night without appropriate
footwear).
So far it seems to have had negligable effect, but it's undoubtedly
more helpful than expecting him to improve himself.
(F'ups set to aue)
--
"The [New York] Times is not a bad little newspaper in some ways. But
when it comes to things like egg balancing, it is out of its depth."
- Cecil Adams, /More of the Straight Dope/
Ryno - just Ryno
<m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>We pray for his soul daily. Except the atheists, who pray for his sole
>(nobody should go out into the grim, dark night without appropriate
>footwear).
>
>So far it seems to have had negligable effect, but it's undoubtedly
>more helpful than expecting him to improve himself.
>
>
>(F'ups set to aue)
Hail to thee, Carrot!
And much ta for the followup setting.
Ryno
AS! d- s+:++ a++ c+++ p+ t-- f- S++ p+ e+ h+ r++ n* i+ P++ m- M++
Charles Riggs
Beyond several people's, it seems, hence the effusive welcomings. I
fully understand your point and agree that we demean Daniel when we
treat him differently than we do others. As a manic-depressive, I've
never cared for that when it has happened to me, even if it rarely
has.
As you say, he has problems, but so do we all. His and mine have been
aired more often than most people's here, but that doesn't mean we
don't all have them. Daniel should have been given the normal type
welcome-back we've given any number of members who have been absent
for a while.
You've demonstrated some assholisms here, Joe, you can't deny it, but
this wasn't one of them.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<rowerick...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>de...@aol.com wrote:
>> Hells, the ONLY GENETIC MUTATION *I* want is something that makes me
>> either be psychic or FLY.
>
>Would you really want to be psychic? Seriously - that would cause more
>problems than it would fix. No "mutation" is only single-sided.
I'm with Joe on this one. Of the many mutations I'd like to have,
ill-effects or not, a few are:
Wings I can sprout from my back at will, powerful enough so I can fly
An ability to better read minds
Two hearts
An additional pair of lungs for the sole purpose of handling smoke
A vagina in addition to a penis
An additional pair of eyes, these on the back of my head
Four ears to hear quadraphonic sound as it should be heard
A third arm so I wouldn't need to hold solder in my teeth at times
An internal gas filter so I'd never be embarrassed by one of my farts
Plastic teeth that can't erode
Of these, I'm nearly assured of having only the last. It's a sad world
we live in.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>You SHOULD be treating EVERYONE EQUALLY!
Certainly. You'll agree then that Muslims deserve the same treatment
we'd give to any of our countrymen or give to people in any foreign
land. You can't back out now, Joe.
--
Charles Riggs
Mike Stanton
Lanarcam
de...@aol.com wrote:
> Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
> > Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! >
> > - Daniel al-Autistiqui
>
> I did not see this before, otherwise I would have commented. Why do
> you let yourself be defined by your "disorder"?
Why do you think he is defining himself by his disorder?
Perhaps he wants only to show that people with that disorder
are capable of expressing themselves clearly and that those
who use the term autist as an insult are just ignorant to
say the least.
Why should he hide this disorder, is it a sin or a fantasy?
[snip]
> You SHOULD be treating EVERYONE EQUALLY!
You should pay respect to everyone but some require more
understanding and help than others.
Mike Stanton
>
>
>John Dean wrote:
>> Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
>> > Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! I was able to download Forté Free Agent
>> > version 2.0 onto the computer in my classroom, and I went through all
>> > of the necessary steps for its configuration, including a setting for
>> > the Italian NNTP server suggested by Skitt. So welcome back to
>> > alt.usage.english from the autistic young man who has since Oct. 2003
>> > been residing at a certain facility in Binghamton!!
>>
>> Yay Daniel! Great to see you back.
>>
>> >
>> > - Daniel al-Autistiqui
>>
>> Love it. Never change.
>
>How DARE you? Would you say that to someone with cancer or AIDS? Oh,
>the disease gon' kill you, but I really wouldn't want to see you go
>through the hassle of becoming healthy again!
You are using AOL so you may not be aware of this. But this thread is
cross posted to alt.support.autism and you have just offended all the
autistic members of alt.support.autism who do not regard autism as a
disease.
Autism is a neurological difference of genetic origin that can enhance
some brain functions while impairing others. Autism is more prevalent
in people with gene based disorders like Downs or Fragile-X than it is
in people with no other disorders. It is not life threatening in
itself.
Some people whose autism comes packaged with other conditions and
difficulties may require life time care. Most have difficulties in
school because of peer group pressure that they do not understand that
makes them easy targets for bullies. Teachers may also see autistic
behaviour as being oppositional and wilfully bad.
Many autistics find that their main difficulty is with people who do
not understand their autism or make allowances for them. "Pretending
to be Normal" in order to get by in an intolerant world exacts a
heavier toll on these people than being autistic.
dolph...@fsmail.net
Lanarcam wrote:
> de...@aol.com wrote:
> > Daniel G. "Govende" McGrath wrote:
> > > Hello--it's Daniel McGovende! >
> > > - Daniel al-Autistiqui
> >
> > I did not see this before, otherwise I would have commented. Why do
> > you let yourself be defined by your "disorder"?
>
> Why do you think he is defining himself by his disorder?
>
> Perhaps he wants only to show that people with that disorder
> are capable of expressing themselves clearly and that those
> who use the term autist as an insult are just ignorant to
> say the least.
This post is mainly directed at the readers of AUE as I doubt it
contains anything new for the ASA readers. It is intended to respond to
a few comments that have been made on this thread.
I think it helps to think of the autistic spectrum as being very wide.
Many people with autism have extreme abilities and/or disabilities.
Many people think of only low-functioning individuals when they think
of autism. However, even there some have amazing savant skills.
Some autists have very poor social abilities but nevertheless get by
and lead amazingly productive lives. For example, some end up in
academia or the science / technology industry. It also extends into the
art world: there are lots of lists of famous suspected autistics on the
internet.
On another point, autism is neurological. It can't (at present) be
cured. And (though not every autist agrees with this) I wouldn't change
it even if there was a 'cure'. Some people don't seem to believe this,
so I have constructed the following analogy.
You are standing in a line for lunch. Everyone else is given a basket
containing six apples. When you are given your basket you look in and
see two decaying apple cores (someone has already eaten them). However,
the basket also contains a few raspberries, a peach, a banana and some
grapes (or whatever your four favourite fruits are). Would you swap?
Dolphinius
(Male, early thirties, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
kungfumaster...@yahoo.com
I think this word problem is a perfect example of a *basket case*!
de...@aol.com
Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
>
> Hint: I don't see my autism as a problem.
Good. But then why do you consider yourself "autistic"? Why do you
demean your own personality by citing it as a "disorder", yet you
yourself claim it's "not a problem"? Either you HAVE a disorder that's
a problem, or you don't!
>
> > Obesity or bulemia or anxiety attacks or even that thing that
> > Marinelli has have never directly killed anyone either. Yet, as
> > diseases and mental "disorders", cures are sought for them.
>
> Yes, because they threaten people's health. Autism doesn't pose a threat
> to myself, though insensitive idiots who don't understand me have posed
> a threat to me in the past. I'd rather have them "CURED".
Then you don't have a problem! LIKE I SAID: you either HAVE A PROBLEM,
or YOU DON'T! If you have a problem, you want it to try to be FIXED!
If you don't have a problem, then you're NOT "AUTISTIC", and it is
simply a meaningless word! Stunod!! BTW, depression, addiction (to
non-substances), being overweight, panic attacks, compulsive eating,
OCD, ADHD, pot addiction, and even bipolarism, multiple personality
disorder, and schizophrenia DO NOT THREATEN A PERSON'S HEALTH! The
ONLY MENTAL DISORDERS that actually threaten a person's health are
stress/anxiety (indirectly) bulemia, anorexia nervosa, obseity
(indirectly), drug addiction, and alcoholism! IRONICALLY, people with
these disorders are often viewed as "normal", or just doing teenage
stuff, or just going through a PHASE. HOW MANY people are medicated
for ANY of those SERIOUS MENTAL AND PHYSCIAL HEALTH DISORDERS
(substance abuse/alcoholism can even indirectly KILL OTHER PEOPLE!!),
other than SEVERE anxiety???! ZERO!! Alcoholism, drug addiction,
ESPECIALLY people with cigarette addictions, and even anorexics and
bulemics, are not only generally TOLERATED by society, they're often
even ENCOURAGED! Teen girls who're bulemic are viewed as cool because
they get fucked; likewise for teen boys who smoke or abuse alcohol!
WHY ARE THE TRUE MENTAL DISORDERS, THE ONES THAT AFFECT THE PHYSCIAL
HEALTH OF THE PERSON AND EVEN OTHER INNOCENTS, JOKED ABOUT AND CONDONED
AND EVEN ENCOURAGED...YET THE HARMLESS ONES LIKE AUTISM, DEPRESSION,
BIPOLARISM, AND SCHIZOPHRENIA ARE FEARED! PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM ARE
HATED AND LOCKED UP AS IF THEY WERE DANGEROUS AND ABOUT TO KILL ANYONE
THEY COULD FIND!! People have no problem calling the people who have
these "problems" pyschopaths and nutcases and locking them away. But
someone who starves herself to death or a heroin addict who can't help
himself get clean are "poor victims"!! THIS IS SICK!!
It's like a comment that an ignorant and stupid DJ at a no-name Trenton
radio station made about my current governor's wife, a depression
sufferer. He said that the governor should legalise DOPE so that his
wife could smoke it and "wouldn't be so nutty", or something to that
effect! OK, so replace her depression (a physically HARMLESS problem)
with pot addiction (a physically DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL mental problem
that is FAR MORE SERIOUS, on MANY levels, than most other "mental
disorders"). Riiiighht! How come people don't lock up all the pot
addicts and people who can't have fun without getting drunk?! Riggs,
you'll agree with me, I'm sure, that THEY are the TRUE dangers to
society, whereas you and Daniel are merely misunderstood because you
don't try to masque your realness and uniqueness, no?! How come people
tolerate this hypocrisy?!?!?!?!!
dolph...@fsmail.net
d...@aol.com wrote:
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
> >
> > Hint: I don't see my autism as a problem.
>
> Good. But then why do you consider yourself "autistic"?
Autism => problem?
False
> Why do you
> demean your own personality by citing it as a "disorder", yet you
> yourself claim it's "not a problem"? Either you HAVE a disorder that's
> a problem, or you don't!
Autism => disorder in certain areas?
True
Autism => on balance you are worse off than if you didn't have autism?
False
> > > Obesity or bulemia or anxiety attacks or even that thing that
> > > Marinelli has have never directly killed anyone either. Yet, as
> > > diseases and mental "disorders", cures are sought for them.
> >
> > Yes, because they threaten people's health. Autism doesn't pose a threat
> > to myself, though insensitive idiots who don't understand me have posed
> > a threat to me in the past. I'd rather have them "CURED".
>
> Then you don't have a problem! LIKE I SAID: you either HAVE A PROBLEM,
> or YOU DON'T! If you have a problem, you want it to try to be FIXED!
> If you don't have a problem, then you're NOT "AUTISTIC", and it is
> simply a meaningless word!
False (you may have a disability which isn't a problem).
I can function well enough to have a job, live on my own and support
myself (financially, practically and emotionally). However, I cannot
function well enough socially to have regular friends (in the sense
that I expect you have), a girlfriend or family (other than those I was
born into). Is it a disability for me? Yes. Is it a problem for me? No
it isn't.
It seems to me that you may be thinking that autism is a narrower
condition than it actually is?
de...@aol.com
Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
> > If people had a choice, NO ONE would be born with a debilitating
> > illness OR genetic mutation!
>
> Autism isn't a genetic *mutation* any more than having brown eyes is a
> genetic mutation.
Having a blue eye isn't a genetic mutation? WOW...that's news to me!
It's merely a different brain structure, and sometimes
> it grows in a way that causes people problems, but the syndrome in and
> of itself is not a bad thing.
Of course it's not. So stop defining yourself by your brain structure.
It's as dumb as when homosexuals definie themselves by their
oreintation, blacks define themselves by their skin hue, or if I were
to define myself as by brown eyes! You said it yourself! Defining an
entire, unique organism by a gene or two is barbarous and reminiscent
of Hilter's "perfect race"--a race free of dark skin, dark eyes, slanty
eyes, predisposition towards fatness, attraction towards people of the
opposite sex, tendency towards spirituality, intelligence, or even
people with your brain structure!
Indeed, most of the people I've talked to
> who have the "problems" are still far happier that they were born and
> allowed to live their lives than treated like animals that needed to be
> put down.
EXACTLY my and Riggs' point. So, how can you COMMEND Daniel's defining
himself by his autism and using it to portray HIMSELF as some sort of
desperate and unfortunate farm animal?!
Why should any human be allowed to make that decision about
> any other human based only on knowledge about one or two genes?
You're MAKING my point for me! Then, WHAT, pray tell, is "autism", and
why do you consider yourself to have it? You seem far more "normal"
than the majority of people at the AUE or even the majority that I know
offline. What's the frigging point of considering yourself "abnormal"
as based on this one gene any more so than I would if I got a scan of
my entire genetic code and found that I have gene 1234 in position
RDJDMD and only .0000000274954% of all human beings have that
particular gene in that particular position? Now, suppose I ran around
telling people to feel proud of me or feel sorry for me, or that I
needed special treatment/attention, BECAUSE of that particular
gene...SURELY then I would be TRULY a mental case, and people'd let me
know it!
>
> > Hells, the ONLY GENETIC MUTATION *I* want is something that makes me
> > either be psychic or FLY.
>
> Would you really want to be psychic? Seriously - that would cause more
> problems than it would fix. No "mutation" is only single-sided.
I believe that if our evolution were allowed to continue naturally, we
would have become able to fly. And then, eventually pyschic. Did you
ever see X-Men? There are already some people with the mutations that
they are super strong, super smart, people that have 4 legs, people
that can eat fire, or even people that can turn themselves invisible.
I think someone even once had the flight mutation, but YEARS ago. SOME
people even already have the psychic mutation (Sylvia Browne) or the
talk-to-dead mutation (John Edwards). They say that it can get
annoying, but luckily they can't read people's minds without the
person's permission. I would love the mutation if it enabled me to
move things with my mind (I read a book once about a girl who could do
it, but I think she was irresponsible and killed herself in like the
80's!), but I WOULD NOT want to know what EVERYONE on Earth was
thinking 24/7. Out of ALL the X-Men, only ONE had that power. I do
not yet know of anyone who has it in real life.
de...@aol.com
Charles Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 02:42:06 +0100, Rowe Rickenbacker
> <rowerick...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >de...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Hells, the ONLY GENETIC MUTATION *I* want is something that makes me
> >> either be psychic or FLY.
> >
> >Would you really want to be psychic? Seriously - that would cause more
> >problems than it would fix. No "mutation" is only single-sided.
>
> I'm with Joe on this one. Of the many mutations I'd like to have,
> ill-effects or not, a few are:
>
> Wings I can sprout from my back at will, powerful enough so I can fly
> An ability to better read minds
> Two hearts
> An additional pair of lungs for the sole purpose of handling smoke
YES! Riggs, those would be inredibly beneficial! I never even thought
of those! We have two kidneys--why not 4 lungs, 2 hearts? How's about
2 brains??! One in the head and one in the ass. The ass one would
control all INVOLUNTARY actions, including farting and shitting. And
the head one would have more room for expanded intelligence and pyschic
stuff!
> A vagina in addition to a penis
Many people have this. They're often treated as freaks though, Riggs.
They are forced to have their penis removed, so that it makes it easy
and "convenient" to classify them as "woman". Also, sadly, the dick
doesn't work so you couldn't fuck yourself.
> An additional pair of eyes, these on the back of my head
I wouldn't like that! As it is, I hate it when my two eyes don't synch
up and I see like the one side of my nose. Imagine how confusing it
would be with FOUR, so far apart from each other!
> Four ears to hear quadraphonic sound as it should be heard
> A third arm so I wouldn't need to hold solder in my teeth at times
> An internal gas filter so I'd never be embarrassed by one of my farts
YES! Imagine if we could harness our farts for energy! Like for each
fart we WOULD otherwise do, a certain amount of, say, super-strength or
psionics were produced!
> Plastic teeth that can't erode
I am not too too worried about that. I think I generally keep my teeth
in good health, although I wish I hadn't grinded them so much as child.
>
> Of these, I'm nearly assured of having only the last. It's a sad world
> we live in.
If you can survive to 2025--I think you surely will--you will
essentially be guaranteed to live to age 120 or 130. If that pushes
you into the 2060-2070-ish period, you will be able to attain
immortality. Who KNOWS what we will see after that?
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Sorry for all the rambling and convoluted sentences above. BUT, I
> believe that some of the worst things that can be done to people
who
> are "mental" are:
>
> 1. Not telling them that they have a "disorder" or "problem" or do
> some stuff that might be perceived as odd by ignorant people, which
> the majority of all people are.
> 2. Treating them like their disorders or oddities don't exist.
> 3. Treating them like they are any worse (OR any better) than
anyone
> else: "special" is AS demeaning as "disabled", "retarded", etc.
We're
> ALL retarded, mental, disabled, unique, and special in one way or
> another because we ALL HAVE DIFFERENT GENES! It ain't rocket
science!
[...]
OK, then, Joe. Straight from the shoulder. I read your message by
chance, because life is too short to read most of the loony garbage
you send out. But I do dip in every now and then -- I don't know why,
but it's probably something to do with having kids about your age,
and having been a pain in the arse myself when I was a kid.
I won't offer a diagnosis. Instead, I'll invite you to compare your
messages with a random sample of the others in the group. You'll be
able to spot differences and similarities without any help from me;
but you could think about length, capital letters (= shouting),
evidence for conclusions, awareness of others, stuff like that. You
could ask yourself why. You could ask yourself if it works.
--
Mike.
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
>
>> Hint: I don't see my autism as a problem.
>
> Good. But then why do you consider yourself "autistic"?
Because I am.
> Why do you demean your own personality by citing it as a "disorder",
> yet you yourself claim it's "not a problem"?
I have Aspergers *Syndrome*. It's not a disorder - I'm just different.
> Either you HAVE a disorder that's a problem, or you don't!
Exactly. You called it a disorder. My room may be disordered,
but I'm fine with who I am... so what are you arguing about?
>>> Obesity or bulemia or anxiety attacks or even that thing that
>>> Marinelli has have never directly killed anyone either. Yet, as
>>> diseases and mental "disorders", cures are sought for them.
>>
>> Yes, because they threaten people's health. Autism doesn't pose a
>> threat to myself, though insensitive idiots who don't understand me
>> have posed a threat to me in the past. I'd rather have them
>> "CURED".
>
> If you have a problem, you want it to try to be FIXED!
Yes, but autism can't be fixed. I may have the odd problem related to
autism, but it's not a constant horrible thing. It's not like cancer, or
even something like back pain, that will always hurt. But like back
pain, you've got to replace a big important part of you to "fix" it, so
what is the point?
Most (if not all) of my friends like me *because* I'm not like everyone
else (not because I'm a good subject of jokes, but because I don't do
all the stupid crap that "normal" people drag others through) and I'm
very intelligent and able to understand and solve things that most of
the people I know have many more "problems" solving.
So... for me, at least, it balances out. There may be problems, but
there are downsides to not smoking. There are downsides to owning a car.
There are downsides to living in a hot country. There are downsides to
living in a cold country. There are downsides to living.
It's impossible to have a perfect life, and while I'm not purporting to
be perfect or trouble free, I am seen to be not only worthy of living,
but to be a contributing member to society. I have a job and I pay my
taxes, and I have family, friends, and people that find me not only to
be a nice person, but one that they want to be around. So why should I
have been born "normal" when the people around me are happy to accept
that I am different?
> If you don't have a problem, then you're NOT "AUTISTIC", and it is
> simply a meaningless word!
No. It explains how I'm different. Are you suggesting that "BROWN HAIR"
and "BLONDE HAIR" are not accurate descriptions for someone if having
that hair colour doesn't cause them any problems? Of course not - it's
simply a way for someone to describe themselves, and furthermore to help
define who they are in a way that is concise and easy for others to
understand. It is easier for me to say "Autistic" than "Have occasional
problems with social interaction, but am generally okay, and am very
good at thinking logically and rationally, with a high intelligence for
understanding and solving problems."
> BTW, depression, addiction (to non-substances), being overweight,
> panic attacks, compulsive eating, OCD, ADHD, pot addiction, and even
> bipolarism, multiple personality disorder, and schizophrenia DO NOT
> THREATEN A PERSON'S HEALTH!
Addiction (and being overweight) can kill you. Autism can kill you in
the same way that being human can kill you. Being alive can kill you.
You're using some sort of strange non-logic which means "If something is
a problem, then it will kill you, and if it doesn't, then you didn't
have it anyway."
> The ONLY MENTAL DISORDERS that actually threaten a person's health
> are stress/anxiety (indirectly) bulemia, anorexia nervosa, obseity
> (indirectly), drug addiction, and alcoholism!
Autism isn't a mental disorder - it's a neurological syndrome. My brain
is different - there's nothing wrong with my personality. You're
equating "hardware" with "software" when it's my hardware that's
different. I process things differently, but that doesn't inherently
mean I've got any particular emotional problems or am psychotic or
something. Autism may have caused a situation that might cause me to be
depressed, but I'm not depressed, and don't have any issues with who I
am or that I'm autistic, beyond learning the boundaries between what is
"normal" and what I am.
> IRONICALLY, people with these disorders are often viewed as "normal",
> or just doing teenage stuff, or just going through a PHASE.
I was viewed as "just going through a phase", but after I was about 5,
they realised this was not the case. I'm a relatively happy person, and
my life is not going downhill, so my friends and family have accepted me
as I am and are happy with who I am.
Still, I'm not viewed as "normal", and wouldn't want to be. I'm happy to
be viewed as me, and also as human, and to a lesser extent as autistic.
> Alcoholism, drug addiction, ESPECIALLY people with cigarette
> addictions, and even anorexics and bulemics, are not only generally
> TOLERATED by society, they're often even ENCOURAGED!
I don't understand your point... that I should be medicated,
or that society encourages me to be more autistic?
> WHY ARE THE TRUE MENTAL DISORDERS, THE ONES THAT AFFECT THE PHYSCIAL
> HEALTH OF THE PERSON AND EVEN OTHER INNOCENTS, JOKED ABOUT AND
> CONDONED AND EVEN ENCOURAGED...YET THE HARMLESS ONES LIKE AUTISM,
> DEPRESSION, BIPOLARISM, AND SCHIZOPHRENIA ARE FEARED!
You seem to be the only one who hates me. I'm not being locked up,
because I'm happy with who I am and not about to kill anyone. I'm
different, and I want people to know that, but that doesn't mean I'm bad
or wrong... it just helps define who I am and how I react and feel.
> THIS IS SICK!!
Reading this... I'm starting to feel that way.
> He said that the governor should legalise DOPE so that his wife could
> smoke it and "wouldn't be so nutty", or something to that effect!
> OK, so replace her depression (a physically HARMLESS problem) with
> pot addiction (a physically DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL mental problem that
> is FAR MORE SERIOUS, on MANY levels, than most other "mental
> disorders").
I don't understand... so you're saying the DJ represents the world
opinion, or that he enforces law? Because the fact some guy I've never
heard or supported said that a depressed person should take an (illegal)
drug that makes some people feel happy doesn't mean anything to me...
the only evidence it seems to represent is that you have problems
thinking logically and rationally.
> How come people don't lock up all the pot addicts and people who
> can't have fun without getting drunk?!
Because "People" don't run the courts and the prisons. The police and
government do, and it's their job to decide what is legal or illegal. We
can suggest or complain, but at the end of the day we don't really have
a lot of choice as to whether they lock up drunks and addicts or not.
> I'm sure, that THEY are the TRUE dangers to society, whereas you and
> Daniel are merely misunderstood because you don't try to masque your
> realness and uniqueness, no?! How come people tolerate this
> hypocrisy?!?!?!?!!
I'm not a drunk or a pot addict. I've tried both, but don't really see
the point in taking an "additive" to help social situations, when I
don't really care for them very much anyway. I like people, and I love
learning about them, but I don't like to hang around them too much.
Would you call a cat that doesn't want to sit next to other cats a
danger to itself or other cats? It isn't violent, and will tolerate
them, but just would rather sit on the other side of the room or go away
somewhere quiet and do something by itself. There's no violence or anger
or anything dangerous there at all... so I don't see your problem.
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> There's no violence or anger or anything dangerous there at all...
> so I don't see your problem.
His problem, Tom, is that the poster you're replying to long ago made
it clear that anyone who doesn't fit his particular (and
remarkably narrow) definition of "normal" is weird, dysfunctional, and
well....weird and dysfunctional...and should probably be locked away so
that they don't offend against his conception of what ought to
constitute normal behaviour.
You've composed an exceedingly level-headed and reasonable response to
someone who's made it very clear that he's proud of his lack of
understanding and empathy with anyone who doesn't fit his preconceived
notion of normality.
(Indeed, the degree to which he seems unable to empathise with anyone
who is marginally different to himself is -- I believe, but please
correct me if I'm wrong -- an indicator of autisism.)
For what it's worth, I greatly admire your tolerance but the poster is
either autistic himself, or falls into the category of those who just
don't *want* to learn.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
>
>> It's merely a different brain structure, and sometimes it grows in
>> a way that causes people problems, but the syndrome in and of
>> itself is not a bad thing.
>
> Of course it's not. So stop defining yourself by your brain
> structure.
I don't. I'm happy with myself, and so are my family and friends. I do
accept that I have a different brain structure to you, but I have to
confess that I'm glad about that... because I am better at some things
than you are, even if you are (allegedly) better at some than me.
> It's as dumb as when homosexuals definie themselves by their
> oreintation, blacks define themselves by their skin hue, or if I were
> to define myself as by brown eyes! You said it yourself! Defining
> an entire, unique organism by a gene or two is barbarous and
> reminiscent of Hilter's "perfect race"
No no... you have it the wrong way around. Having one or two "different"
genes does not mean the others are different too. Hitler saw his perfect
race as having all perfect genes, so if someone had one "bad" gene, then
all the others were bad too... which is not the case. Someone can be bad
at math but good at art, or bad at logic but great at sports. Very very
few people in this world are good at many things - most of them are only
good at a few things.
I consider myself to be fairly good looking, and have been told as such,
but that doesn't automatically mean I'm clever or sporty or whatever.
Just in the same way that autism doesn't automatically mean my other
genes are especially different from anyone elses either.
>> Indeed, most of the people I've talked to who have the "problems"
>> are still far happier that they were born and allowed to live their
>> lives than treated like animals that needed to be put down.
>
> EXACTLY my and Riggs' point. So, how can you COMMEND Daniel's
> defining himself by his autism and using it to portray HIMSELF as
> some sort of desperate and unfortunate farm animal?!
When did he define himself as a desperate and unfortunate farm animal?
I'm not reading AUE, so perhaps am missing out on something here, but
all I can tell is that he had problems, so he's been working them out.
People with autism often have problems of some sort, because people like
you are constantly trying to out them as something pathetic and wrong...
it's very rarely (if at all) because of their own genetics or whatever.
>> Why should any human be allowed to make that decision about any
>> other human based only on knowledge about one or two genes?
>
> You're MAKING my point for me!
I have yet to identify what your point actually is.
> Then, WHAT, pray tell, is "autism", and why do you consider yourself
> to have it? You seem far more "normal" than the majority of people at
> the AUE or even the majority that I know offline.
Whether you have abnormal friends is not my concern, but my genes did
cause my brain to develop differently to yours.
Being able to identify "autistic genes" before birth would not
necessarily have meant I'd be all perfect and happy about life...
everyone is likely to have problems at some level. My brain developed
differently, so I think differently to you, and I react somewhat
differently in public than I do on here. Whether I were to become
depressed with life or have emotional problems later in life might be my
own fault, but it wouldn't be directly because of autism, because it
just means I think about things differently... it doesn't decide what my
conclusions will be.
> What's the frigging point of considering yourself "abnormal" as based
> on this one gene any more so than I would if I got a scan of my
> entire genetic code and found that I have gene 1234 in position
> RDJDMD and only .0000000274954% of all human beings have that
> particular gene in that particular position? Now, suppose I ran
> around telling people to feel proud of me or feel sorry for me, or
> that I needed special treatment/attention, BECAUSE of that particular
> gene...SURELY then I would be TRULY a mental case, and people'd let
> me know it!
I agree. Somewhat. But I'm not proud of being autistic and more than I
would be proud of not being autistic. I also never asked you to feel
sorry for me. As far as I can tell, Daniel never asked you to feel sorry
for him either. He might have asked you to give him some leeway because
he wont necessarily understand what you're talking about straight away,
but from my experience with you, I could quite understand that request.
>>> Hells, the ONLY GENETIC MUTATION *I* want is something that makes
>>> me either be psychic or FLY.
>>
>> Would you really want to be psychic? Seriously - that would cause
>> more problems than it would fix. No "mutation" is only
>> single-sided.
>
> I believe that if our evolution were allowed to continue naturally,
> we would have become able to fly.
But what reason do we have to fly? If survive well and happily living on
the ground, then what reason do we have to fly, beyond our own curiosity
(or greed)?
> And then, eventually pyschic.
Perhaps, but I still believe this would cause at least as many problems
as it would fix. There are things people do not want other people to
know, and having the ability to invade someones mind suggests to me that
people with that ability would not be trusted, and maybe even hated.
> There are already some people with the mutations that they are super
> strong, super smart, people that have 4 legs, people that can eat
> fire, or even people that can turn themselves invisible.
There are real people with mutations that give them 4 legs, the ability
to *eat* fire unaided, or turn themselves invisible? You are mistaken.
> I think someone even once had the flight mutation, but YEARS ago.
How many years?
> They say that it can get annoying, but luckily they can't read
> people's minds without the person's permission.
That's a very convenient mutation, isn't it?
> I would love the mutation if it enabled me to move things with my
> mind
Perhaps, but I think a "mutation" such as that (that contradicts all of
the laws of gravity as we know them) would increase the amount of crime
at an incredible rate. Everything secure in the world would have to be
computerised with no moving parts to make sure no one could somehow use
it or manipulate it to their unfair advantage.
As for your previous assertions, I think the burden of proof is on you.
Lanarcam
You probably didn't mean harm, on the contrary you were
making it plain that the poster lacked something.
But you have as many do used the term autistic in a
pejorative way. You often hear for instance in the
media people *accused* of being autistic when they
seem not to take care of what others think.
As it is plain this has nothing to do with autisism.
It's just an analogy that is used sloppily by people
who are either ignorant or who don't care.
But what do you think people who are autistic think
when they hear such insults? Some are probably
well enough not to care. But others can feel
offended and think that the society rejects
autists since this is meant as an insult.
This is not about PC but wouldn't it be best
to avoid such insults at least when you are
aware of the real thing.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> How's about 2 brains??! One in the head and one in the ass. The
ass
> one would control all INVOLUNTARY actions, including farting and
Ah, now I understand many things. I don't think there's a nice way of
putting this, Joe, but somebody's got to tell you. Farting and
shitting are actually not involuntary: most people learn to control
them when they're just little kids, but with professional help I'm
sure it can be handled at any age. I reckon these little skills could
transform a man's social life.
--
Mike.
Harvey Van Sickle
>> EXACTLY my and Riggs' point. So, how can you COMMEND Daniel's
>> defining himself by his autism and using it to portray HIMSELF as
>> some sort of desperate and unfortunate farm animal?!
>
> When did he define himself as a desperate and unfortunate farm
> animal? I'm not reading AUE, so perhaps am missing out on
> something here, but all I can tell is that he had problems, so
> he's been working them out.
Daniel's never defined himself that way: the poster you're responding
to defines people that way.
Daniel posted in alt.usage.english for a number of years, as he tends
(or at least used to tend) to fixate on word meanings and various
language issues. His autism sounds (to me) to be quite severe, but his
intelligence and decency has always shone through.
He appears to have gone through a particularly bad patch a year or two
ago; has had assitance which has obviously worked wonders; and has
now started re-posting here.
(My reaction to his reappearance was clearly shared by many: I'm not
only thrilled that he's back, but I feel we are honoured with his
presence and insights.)
As far as I can tell (given that I read very few of his posts), the
fellow you're responding to not only doesn't listen to people, he's
inordinately proud of that trait.
this might be of interest to you, for background context -- it's an
excerpt from the AUE FAQ, written by Daniel's mother Catherine. (From
the tenor of Daniel's recent postings, things are more in balance since
this was written.)
----quote----
_From the AUE FAQ_:
About Autism and Daniel McGrath
by Catherine McGrath
Daniel McGrath is a young man (born 1981) who has autism.* He is
brilliant in many areas - he read at age two, wrote at two-and-a-half,
and did math work at age three. However, Daniel is still very disabled,
and needs support services in many areas of his life.
He is an avid subscriber to AUE, and it is one of his main pleasures in
life. It actually serves as a lifeline of sorts: when he has a problem
with words or language, he can and does ask for help by posting his
questions on AUE.
In times of frustration or depression, he will post rather strange
messages. This is not done intentionally to annoy anyone. We hope
people will try to understand Daniel's limitations and only respond
when they can help answer his genuine questions.
* Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder, meaning that it affects
every aspect of one's life. It is a lifelong disability. People with
autism have difficulties of varying degrees in the areas of
communication, socialization, and behavior. They can also suffer from
depression and other psychological problems.
----end quote----
I hope this is of interest, and puts some of this thread in context for
you and the other readers from alt.support.autism.
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote
>
>> There's no violence or anger or anything dangerous there at all...
>> so I don't see your problem.
>
> His problem, Tom, is that the poster you're replying to long
> ago made it clear that anyone who doesn't fit his particular
> (and remarkably narrow) definition of "normal" is weird,
> dysfunctional, and well....weird and dysfunctional... and
> should probably be locked away so that they don't offend against
> his conception of what ought to constitute normal behaviour.
I understand.
While I have gained experience in the areas that I really am different
to others, and tried to learn ways to bridge the gap so that I may
communicate with others more effectively (and efficiently), I still see
many "normal" people as "weird". It's not something I can help, but I
just see most non-autistics as weird, because there are differences
ranging from the subtle to the obvious.
However, whether I am in the minority or not, I have learned that all
forms of humanity are still humanity, and must be treated as such.
It seems that he thinks of others almost as much as a cannibal.
> You've composed an exceedingly level-headed and reasonable response
> to someone who's made it very clear that he's proud of his lack of
> understanding and empathy with anyone who doesn't fit his
> preconceived notion of normality.
Thank you. I think.
> (Indeed, the degree to which he seems unable to empathise with anyone
> who is marginally different to himself is -- I believe, but please
> correct me if I'm wrong -- an indicator of autisism.)
You have a point. "Theory of Mind" (the ability to empathise with
someone who thinks or feels differently to yourself) is something that
is seen to be a big part of Autism. Most of the Autistics you'll find in
"ASA" have become pretty good at empathy in one form or another, because
they can usually relate the situation the original poster is in to a
situation they have also been in at one time or another. That is
generally the way autistics empathise (though I've quite a few
non-autistics that say they do a similar thing, so I'll end the
description there to avoid confusing matters).
Still, while there are more than enough "Aspies" and Autistics that
refuse to listen to the views of others, it's unlikely for an Autistic
to read what others say to automatically further their arguement. That
is generally a very non-autistic thing to do, while autistics may
sometimes mistake the intention of the person and so interpret their
question or statement from the wrong angle, as anyone might sometimes.
> For what it's worth, I greatly admire your tolerance but the poster
> is either autistic himself, or falls into the category of those who
> just don't *want* to learn.
Seeing his latter writing on how cool various mutations would be, I have
begun to understand that. Growing wings or excreting steel would be nice
talents to have, but it's very irrational try to compare comicbook-style
"powers" with a simple gene governing how the cognitive architecture of
one's brain develops. Very few autistics are looking for sympathy.
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
>
>> When did he define himself as a desperate and unfortunate farm
>> animal? I'm not reading AUE, so perhaps am missing out on something
>> here, but all I can tell is that he had problems, so he's been
>> working them out.
>
> Daniel's never defined himself that way: the poster you're
> responding to defines people that way.
I understand.
> this might be of interest to you, for background context -- it's an
> excerpt from the AUE FAQ, written by Daniel's mother Catherine.
> (From the tenor of Daniel's recent postings, things are more in
> balance since this was written.)
<snip>
> ----end quote----
>
> I hope this is of interest
Thank you.
> and puts some of this thread in context for you and the other readers
> from alt.support.autism.
That is a very nice piece, seeing that it's written by his mother.
Mine didn't try to understand my, erm, "developmental differences",
and denied that they were neurological, or even existed.
I feel that Daniel is, despite any problems he may face, a very
lucky guy, and can understand your feelings at having him back.
If Daniel is reading, I wish you well at both AUE and ASA.
Harvey Van Sickle
Sorry, but I didn't use it pejoratively; I was attempting to the term
analytically. I post from alt.usage.english, in which group we try to
use words accurately.
I'd point out that I did ask -- politely -- to be corrected if I was
wrong in associating characteristics of non-empathy as an autistic
indicator. If you are saying that that is *not* an indicator, fine:
but I do not think you should chastise me for asking -- in a
language usage group -- whether that is or is not an indicator.
> You often hear for instance in the
> media people *accused* of being autistic when they
> seem not to take care of what others think.
Well, there was no "accusation" involved in my post. The poster we are
discussing has a long history in AUE of non-empathy with the situations
of others, and it does not seem unreasonable to wonder -- whilst asking
to be corrected (but not chastised) -- whether that might be an
indicator of autistic characteristics.
> As it is plain this has nothing to do with autisism.
But this thread has *everything* to do with autism: Daniel McGrath is a
valued contributor to this group (AUE), who is (a) autistic; (b) has
his own entry in the group's FAQ to clarify this; (c) been absent for
a year or so while he has (I believe) been in the process of reclaiming
control over some of his more severe symptoms; and (d) has now
returned and been warmly welcomed back.
> It's just an analogy that is used sloppily by people
> who are either ignorant or who don't care.
>
> But what do you think people who are autistic think
> when they hear such insults? Some are probably
> well enough not to care. But others can feel
> offended and think that the society rejects
> autists since this is meant as an insult.
>
> This is not about PC but wouldn't it be best
> to avoid such insults at least when you are
> aware of the real thing.
I suspect you have come in half- or three-quarters of the way into this
thread. If that is the case, it would be helpful if you would read the
full thread -- from the start -- before you start jumping to
conclusion.
If that is not the case, I would respectfully suggest that you re-read
the *whole* of the thread without a preconception that words in
alt.usage.english are used "sloppily".
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I greatly admire your tolerance but the poster
>> is either autistic himself, or falls into the category of those who
>> just don't *want* to learn.
>
> You probably didn't mean harm, on the contrary you were making it
> plain that the poster lacked something.
Not necessarily "lacked"... the poster he is talking about could merely
have a viewpoint that is based on hearsay and minority experience and
then be using this as his basis for his opinions rather than
intentionally avoiding learning and *improving* his knowledge.
> But you have as many do used the term autistic in a pejorative way.
> You often hear for instance in the media people *accused* of being
> autistic when they seem not to take care of what others think.
"Seem" yes. This is what seems to differ in this poster, as he seems to
be intentionally trying to ignore what others are thinking. Of course,
my analysis could be wrong, but that's how it comes across.
I would probably be likely to stick it out for more "information" to
base an opinion/conclusion on, but from what posters from AUE have said,
this would be tantamount to trolling on my part, so I will resist.
> But what do you think people who are autistic think when they hear
> such insults?
To be honest, I'm not offended by such comments, because I've met some
autistics that *are* dead-set in their ways and come across as very
stubborn. Having said that, most autistics are very easy to talk with
when using logic and reason. If you make a reasonable arguement and
support it with logic and fact, then a non-autistic is more likely to
try to find ways to fault the facts and manipulate the logic, rather
than an autistic who will likely change their opinion.
In ASA, we have had situations where autistics change their opinions
after being confronted with fact, and then *a minority* of others fault
them for changing their opinion as if that is a dishonourable thing.
Autistics are far more likely to follow logical thought than ettiquette,
and that is what is hard to decide on some posters - because it's often
not intentional on the autistic's part, whereas a non-autistic might do
these things intentionally, but try to make it appear unintentional.
Harvey Van Sickle
>> (Indeed, the degree to which he seems unable to empathise with
>> anyone who is marginally different to himself is -- I believe,
>> but please correct me if I'm wrong -- an indicator of autisism.)
>
> You have a point. "Theory of Mind" (the ability to empathise with
> someone who thinks or feels differently to yourself) is something
> that is seen to be a big part of Autism. Most of the Autistics
> you'll find in "ASA" have become pretty good at empathy in one
> form or another, because they can usually relate the situation the
> original poster is in to a situation they have also been in at one
> time or another. That is generally the way autistics empathise
> (though I've quite a few non-autistics that say they do a similar
> thing, so I'll end the description there to avoid confusing
> matters).
>
> Still, while there are more than enough "Aspies" and Autistics
> that refuse to listen to the views of others, it's unlikely for an
> Autistic to read what others say to automatically further their
> arguement. That is generally a very non-autistic thing to do,
> while autistics may sometimes mistake the intention of the person
> and so interpret their question or statement from the wrong angle,
> as anyone might sometimes.
Thank you; I didn't realise the nuance of the difference between --
very, very roughly speaking -- "cannot hear" (which could possibly be
autistic) and "hear only in support of one's views" (which I will now
watch out for as "not a common autistic trait".)
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Lanarcam wrote:
>
>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>
>>> For what it's worth, I greatly admire your tolerance but the
>>> poster is either autistic himself, or falls into the category of
>>> those who just don't *want* to learn.
>>
>> You probably didn't mean harm, on the contrary you were making it
>> plain that the poster lacked something.
>
> I'd point out that I did ask -- politely -- to be corrected if I was
> wrong in associating characteristics of non-empathy as an autistic
> indicator. If you are saying that that is *not* an indicator, fine:
> but I do not think you should chastise me for asking -- in a language
> usage group -- whether that is or is not an indicator.
I agree. I would also add that you are both right and wrong... autistics
do empathise, but it is based entirely and directly on experience rather
than internal intuition or other sources.
For example, if I cannot use previous experience to imagine myself in
the same situation as the person I'm "empathising" with, then I cannot
empathise with them. Period. I feel that, while nice, sympathy is
another word for "lying about empathy", so it's hard...
> The poster we are discussing has a long history in AUE of non-empathy
> with the situations of others, and it does not seem unreasonable to
> wonder -- whilst asking to be corrected (but not chastised) --
> whether that might be an indicator of autistic characteristics.
I agree, though I have to wonder whether the outcome would affect the
poster in question. I suspect he would react aggressively.
>> As it is plain this has nothing to do with autisism.
>
> But this thread has *everything* to do with autism:
<snip>
Exactly.
> I would respectfully suggest that you re-read the *whole* of the
> thread without a preconception that words in alt.usage.english are
> used "sloppily".
I think he was suggesting that you didn't know the full fact behind
autism and were jumping to conclusions, but you so far seem to be both
reasonable and insightful...
Rowe Rickenbacker
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote
>
>> while there are more than enough "Aspies" and Autistics that refuse
>> to listen to the views of others, it's unlikely for an Autistic to
>> read what others say to automatically further their arguement.
>> That is generally a very non-autistic thing to do
>
> Thank you; I didn't realise the nuance of the difference between --
> very, very roughly speaking -- "cannot hear" (which could possibly be
> autistic) and "hear only in support of one's views" (which I will now
> watch out for as "not a common autistic trait".)
You explained it better than I could. Yes, it's generally an all or
nothing thing - an autistic will either pick something up, or not, but
they wont only pick up thing supporting their views, though they may be
more critical of things not supporting their views...
I find autistics (the jury's out on everyone else) to have problems
seeing the ratio of "likely" against "not likely" beyond what is
factual. So, one might remember seeing something racist and then not
realise it was a very unlikely event.
My experience of non-autistics has led me to believe that they are
likely to "forget" things that don't further their arguement, whereas
autistics often try to find things to disprove an arguement, and so with
this problem with seeing what is more likely, they are likely to
disprove a rule because it happens "most" of the time but is
occasionally wrong.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
-snip-
>> I would respectfully suggest that you re-read the *whole* of the
>> thread without a preconception that words in alt.usage.english
>> are used "sloppily".
>
> I think he was suggesting that you didn't know the full fact
> behind autism and were jumping to conclusions, but you so far seem
> to be both reasonable and insightful...
Thanks for that. It's clearly not up to me to judge if I'm insightful,
but I *do* make an effort to be reasonable.
(I'd insert one of those winkie/smiley emoticons here, but that often
prompts upturned noses in AUE, so I'll write this unreasonably long
explanatory sentence instead...)
Wood Avens
<rowerick...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
{snip]
I'd just like to say (as an aue reader/poster) how much I'm valuing
your posts, Tom. I have an Asperger's syndrome grand-daughter (who
lives in America, but who's coincidentally staying with me in England
this month), and you're giving me valuable insights into aspects of
her behaviour. Thank you.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Terry Jones
23:16:25 +0100 <3jtf9tF...@individual.net>
>I agree. I would also add that you are both right and wrong... autistics
>do empathise, but it is based entirely and directly on experience rather
>than internal intuition or other sources.
>
OTOH because of the problems of processing emotional / social /
non-verbal 'signals' in real-time, I think that we tend to mentally
'model' people much more at a conscious level than do NTs [NT
Neuro(logically) Typical people] - So I think that many (though not
all) tend to develop a form of 'empathy' with time and experience.
But it's not of the "taking in the situation at a glance" sort - I
(and others) may come to a sudden realisation about something we did /
said (or *failed* to do / say) many, many years after the event.
We have a saying to the effect that - If it's *emotional* support that
you want, then you need an NT - but for *practical* ideas and
suggestions, then you're better off with an autistic (as long as
they're able to function, we need a lot more 'downtime' / recovery
time, than the average person).
Almost everything you could say about autism is a simplification, and
the 'common knowledge' is a simplification of a simplification :)
Terry
Mike Stanton
>
>d...@aol.com wrote:
>> Then you don't have a problem! LIKE I SAID: you either HAVE A PROBLEM,
>> or YOU DON'T! If you have a problem, you want it to try to be FIXED!
>> If you don't have a problem, then you're NOT "AUTISTIC", and it is
>> simply a meaningless word!
>
>It seems to me that you may be thinking
Hold it right there pardner! Maybe you want to reconsider that
statement :o)
>Dolphinius
>(Male, early thirties, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
--
Robin Bignall
Mike, when will you learn that it hurts me to laugh so much?
--
Robin
Hoddesdon, England
kungfumaster...@yahoo.com
de...@aol.com wrote:
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> > On 15 Jul 2005 17:14:45 -0700, de...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > >Or is all this beyond your comprehension? (Most likely.)
> >
> > Beyond several people's, it seems, hence the effusive welcomings. I
> > fully understand your point and agree that we demean Daniel when we
> > treat him differently than we do others. As a manic-depressive, I've
> > never cared for that when it has happened to me, even if it rarely
> > has.
>
> Yes, Charles. As someone who does not really have ANY "mental
> disorders" (I don't think, anyways--there's always been that
> possibility that I have something but no one's telling me; does that
> make me paranoid or a hypochondriac, and does that mean I really AM
> mental???? Sometimes, I wonder about that, and I just find my mind
> going around in circles...), I can say that I dislike when people,
> namely my parents, have tried so hard to FIND something that "MUST" be
> wrong with me (this has also happened with essentially ALL of my
> friends [ya know why? Because parents have NEVER been able to
> understand their children or their children's generation/culture; but,
> until MY generation, parents did not declare generational DIFFERENCES
> to be "diseases"! IT IS SICK!!], some of which have been diagnosed
> with a "disorder", and some of which never have).
>
> Because this is such an important issue to discuss, I am going to be
> even blunter and more open than usual: I come from a family with a
> genetic history of mental disorder (then again, given that FIFTY
> PERCENT of the American public has or will have a mental disorder at
> some point in their lives [this is not even including Alzheimer's,
> which affects 50% of all people over 65 and upwards of 80% of all
> people over 80--meaning that BASICALLY ALL American people, or one of
> their close relatives, has or will have a "mental disorder" at some
> point in time], who doesn't come from a family of nutcases?--the thing
> is everyone thinks it's "wrong" or "bad" or something to be ashamed of,
> so NO ONE ever talks about it! How many people in this group are a bit
> "mental" by "normal" standards, or have insanity in their genes? MOST,
> if not ALL, of us!)...Given my family history, and my parents'
> attitudes towards me for my entire life, they have been constantly
> TRYING to find problems with me! When Eminem released that song about
> his mother's disease, it truly made me wonder if it's not what my
> parents have--but I'm not going to go and send THEM to shrinks because,
> very soon, I will be done with them; they'll NO LONGER be able to force
> me to doctors since, because they don't like the way I am, I "must"
> have some sort of diagnosable problem, and they're gonna keep trying to
> "help" me to become more like them until I am finally diagnosed with
> something! Ironically, if their actions make me paraoid or depressed
> or anxious about my OWN mental health, then they will have succeeded.
> It has been DRAINING just trying to convince/remind myself that I am as
> "normal" as any other unique and individual human being and that if
> ANYONE in my household has serious mental "deviancies" from the
> "average" person, it is not me. But, it worries me sometimes to think
> that they MIGHT succeed in turning me "mental", if I am NOT already
> "mental" by someone else's standards and that that someone else is
> going to decide to "medicate" me with some drug that, in all
> likelihood, will only WORSEN whatever "condition" I might "develop"!
> Anyways, this is the dilemma that exists when people try to treat
> "mental" people, or those who they perceive as acting weird so MUST be
> "mental", as different than "normal" people. IT MAKES THEIR UNUSUAL
> PERSONALITY TRAITS ("disorders") WORSE!
>
> Sorry for all the rambling and convoluted sentences above. BUT, I
> believe that some of the worst things that can be done to people who
> are "mental" are:
>
> 1. Not telling them that they have a "disorder" or "problem" or do some
> stuff that might be perceived as odd by ignorant people, which the
> majority of all people are.
> 2. Treating them like their disorders or oddities don't exist.
> 3. Treating them like they are any worse (OR any better) than anyone
> else: "special" is AS demeaning as "disabled", "retarded", etc. We're
> ALL retarded, mental, disabled, unique, and special in one way or
> another because we ALL HAVE DIFFERENT GENES! It ain't rocket science!
>
> And, if 50-80+% of ALL people become "mental" at some point, are we
> sure that it's not the OTHER 20-% of the population who aren't the
> ABNORMAL ones?! Evolutionarily, mental "disorders" have good reasons
> for being. But, in modern, productive socities, people don't like it
> when people have certain NORMAL attitudes or moods or emotions or
> beliefs--thus, people are deemed "mental" in order to make them conform
> more to "normal"! It's outlandish! If ANYONE has a "disability to
> function normally", or whatever the proper definition of "mental" is
> these days, it is anyone who believes that SOCIETY and
> stereotypes/ignorance about people who are different isn't what causes
> "mental problems". THEY have an inability to function in realizing
> that MOST PEOPLE can't function according to THEIR standards of
> "appropriate" and "normal" thoughts and behaviours.
>
> Adding support to all that I have said, I just yesterday read an
> interesting article about schizophrenia, often considered in the
> Western World to be THE most debilitating and incurable of all
> "problems" that a person might come to have. However, in the Third
> World, the "disorder" really is not much of a problem. It exists,
> mostly brought on due to envioronmental stressors. Yet, because the
> Third World treats "mental" people as equals to everyone else, the
> disease often goes into long periods of remission or is even completely
> CURED in people!! NO DRUGS! Just a change in the attitudes of OTHERS
> towards those with the "problem". If this isn't proof that when you
> all BABY Riggs during one of his depressed moods, or when you treat
> Daniel like he has severe mental retardation just because he's got mild
> Aspberger's, that you're CONTRIBUTING to what you perceive as their
> "problem" and making stronger the aspects of their
> personalities/moods/emotions that you dislike or view as "abnormal",
> then I don't know WHAT is! Why EITHER Riggs' mood swings OR Daniel's
> whatever the hell it is that's "wrong" with him should be considered
> "bad" or "wrong", rather than just "different from the way I do things"
> is ALSO beyond me! Hell, I may not LIKE when Riggs bitches people out,
> may not think it's necessarily nice. But, IMO, Riggs' display of a
> FULL RANGE of emotions is realler and EXTREMELY MORE "NORMAL" AND
> HEALTHY than those of you who're afraid of "acting up" in public. TO
> ME, a NORMAL person is happy and sad and depressed and grouchy and
> angry and excited and humorous and bored and interesting and tired and
> lazy and productive and irritable and bizarre, etc, etc! People who
> only publicly display one or two emotions are ABNORMAL and by many are
> likely viewed as "insane" because of their imbalanced emotions. At
> least we ALWAYS know where Charles Riggs stands and how he feels about
> everything and everyone! Call it a disorder, but I call it a normal,
> rational human being!
>
>
> >
> > As you say, he has problems, but so do we all. His and mine have been
> > aired more often than most people's here, but that doesn't mean we
> > don't all have them.
>
> Exactly what I said above before I read down here.
>
> Daniel should have been given the normal type
> > welcome-back we've given any number of members who have been absent
> > for a while.
> >
> > You've demonstrated some assholisms here, Joe, you can't deny it, but
> > this wasn't one of them.
>
> It may have been slightly, but I don't care. When Leah and I arrived
> here, we were bombarded by assholisms and were definitely extremely
> assholish back. You never get a second chance to make a first
> impression, and Leah and I will likely ALWAYS associate "AUE" with
> "assholish old people who don't know what they're talking about even
> though they think they do". It's a stereotype and a generalization,
> sure. But, for four years, this is how we've viewed the group "The
> AUE," and how we have construed it to all that we've told about it.
> (Likewise, there are people here who will ALWAYS associate my name with
> "asshole", and people who do the same with you--you don't care; neither
> do I. It's just the way the human pysche works--it ain't some sort of
> "racial generalization disorder" or nothing!) It doesn't mean I
> dislike anyone here, but I view people on the internet--and especially
> here [myself included]--as generally being exaggerated versions of
> their real-life assholness that many people choose not to express
> publicly EXCEPT online. (God forbid, they might be diagnosed with
> assholish personality disorder and be on meds their entire lives, you
> know!)
>
> So, there's nothing wrong with being a little bit assy at times. I
> have no problem with people who dish it, as long as they can take it
> back at them. For a long time, the AUE could only dish it out. You've
> all matured greatly! ;)
looks like the only person with a problem here is the person who can't
get their CAPS LOCK unstuck...
de...@aol.com
Mike Lyle wrote:
>
> I won't offer a diagnosis. Instead, I'll invite you to compare your
> messages with a random sample of the others in the group. You'll be
> able to spot differences and similarities without any help from me;
> but you could think about length, capital letters (= shouting),
> evidence for conclusions, awareness of others, stuff like that. You
> could ask yourself why. You could ask yourself if it works.
>
Huh? What's your point? We've been THROUGH all this before! CAPS =
EMPHASIS!! What, exactly, are you trying to lecture me on anyways?
I am not trying to have ANYTHING "work"--if you find enjoyment or
insight from something I write, then chances are you'll probably look
for other things I write. If not, you won't. I'm not here to win some
sort of award for having the most-read posts!
de...@aol.com
dolph...@fsmail.net wrote:
>
> Autism => problem?
>
> False
>
> Autism => disorder in certain areas?
>
> True
Ummm...moron, you just contradicted yourself in the span of ONE POST!
As I ALREADY SAID: either you HAVE a problem that needs to be addressed
and remedied, or you DON'T!
>
> Autism => on balance you are worse off than if you didn't have autism?
>
> False
Well, then what's your point? Why do you choose to define yourself as
"autistic" then, as if it's some sort of horrible health problem?!
> False (you may have a disability which isn't a problem).
You either require help for a disability or you don't. If you don't
need any sort of extra help, then you don't really HAVE a disability,
do you?!
>
> I can function well enough to have a job, live on my own and support
> myself (financially, practically and emotionally). However, I cannot
> function well enough socially to have regular friends (in the sense
> that I expect you have), a girlfriend or family (other than those I was
> born into). Is it a disability for me? Yes. Is it a problem for me? No
> it isn't.
If it's not a problem, then how's it a disability? It simply IS the
way things are. Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Forrest Gump
don't have regular friends, regular boos, or normal families of their
own, but that DOESN'T MAKE THEM AUTISTIC! It's simply not how their
genetic composition is and/or how they were brought up to live in the
world, what things they were raised to believe important, and what
CHOICES and OPINIONS are right for them! There are also some people
who can't function WITHOUT 10,000,000 friends nearby constantly! To
you, THEY probably seem weird. Why are they not content being alone?
It doesn't make one right and one wrong. People who have been treating
you like you have a "disability" have you brainwashed into thinking
that there is a very black-and-white definition of what's "supposed to
be" and what's not, and anyone who does different from what's "supposed
to be" is "disordered". This is BULLSHIT that people of your
generation created in an attempt to stereotype and pigeonhole EVERYONE!
You describe yourself as "self-diagnosed Aspergers...RIGHT! What
makes you think YOU'RE the one with the problem and the people who
don't understand you for you AREN'T the real ones with a problem?!
Maybe if you found some BETTER friends or a spouse more like you, you
WOULD be able to "function" around them. Again, it's NOT rocket
science. You are socially "NORMAL" in so far as ability to "function"
around complete strangers on the net. Are ALL of us just so bizarre
and out there that we can ONLY relate to each other, meanwhile the
"normal" folk of the world believe us to be mental cases?!
>
> It seems to me that you may be thinking that autism is a narrower
> condition than it actually is?
I just want a straight answer, from SOMEONE, on why it's a "condition"
at all.
Philip W Lee at hyphen dot dot
16 Jul 2005 22:07:51 +0100 the perfect time to write:
I think he read/watched X Men as a documentary.
--
Autistic Spectrum Code v.1.0
AS! d-(pu)@ s-: a42 c+++(++) p+ t-(++)@ f-(---) S+(++) p@ e++ h+ r++ n+(--) i++(+) P m+() M(++)
ASC Decoder at <http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/>
de...@aol.com
> >
> > Good. But then why do you consider yourself "autistic"?
>
> Because I am.
How so? Explain. What makes you any different from me or Liebs or
high-and-mighty Mike Lyle or anyone else on this planet?
>
> > Why do you demean your own personality by citing it as a "disorder",
> > yet you yourself claim it's "not a problem"?
>
> I have Aspergers *Syndrome*. It's not a disorder - I'm just different.
Again: how so? Again: we're ALL different. What makes your one
particular "abnormality" (to say "difference" would be misleading, as
that particular part of your genetic code is only "DIFFERENT" from the
majority, as far as we can tell; it'd be like sweepingly calling all
people with blue eyes "different" simply because they don't have the
majority eye color--it doesn't make them any better or worse, and it is
LUNACY to pretend otherwise) something so necessary to single out?
What differentiates you, as a "person with Aspergers", from all other
"people without Aspergers", other than perhaps one or two mutations
that cause an atypical brain structure, as someone else has already
pointed out?
>
> > Either you HAVE a disorder that's a problem, or you don't!
>
> Exactly. You called it a disorder. My room may be disordered,
> but I'm fine with who I am... so what are you arguing about?
So, then WHAT makes this genetic variation a "disorder" any more so
than the genetic variation of blue eyes or blonde hair or homosexuality
is a "disorder"? A DISORDER is something that needs to be fixed.
CANCER is a disorder. DRUG DEPENDENCY is a disorder. IS Aspergers
something that needs to be treated/worked on in people? Or is it not?
If you fine with who you are, as we all SHOULD be, then why do you feel
the need to point out that you have this brain structure any more or
any less than you have the need to point out your hair color? If I
asked for a map of your genetic composition, then OK, fine. But why do
you choose to define yourself as "Aspergers", as if it was something
that required fixing or special attention/treatment from others, and
why do you frequent a group giving "support" to people with merely a
different-than-standard gene?
>
> Yes, but autism can't be fixed.
Being a mainly genetic thing, you may be right. However, no one or two
genes defines a person. Just because a person has a genetic
predisposition towards obesity, cancer, diabetes, or manic-depression,
that does not mean that they WILL ever get any of those
disorders/problems. Your enviornment, namely the way people choose to
treat you and the way in which you view yourself, is even MORE powerful
in overcoming anything you wish to overcome than one or two genes.
E.G., people with cancer genes can prevent it from maifesting itself by
exercising, eating very little red meant, and not smoking. I also
cited a study proving that ENVIRONMENT and the way they are perceived
of and treated by others CURES schizophrenia, but this has thus far
only been evident in the Third World, where they do not treat different
people as lepers.
I may have the odd problem related to
> autism, but it's not a constant horrible thing.
Like what? You describe yourself as autistic, but you seem as socially
capable, if not more so, than half of the AUE. They're not autistic,
or at least not diagnosed as being so. But, even if they were, it
would not change the fact that they are the people they are. We all
are. You are right that the autistic variant of the brain is most
certainly NOT a horrible thing; it is merely a deviation from the norm,
which is why autistics may not always be readily understood by the more
"average" of the world's people (i.e., MOST people of the world are
"average" because that's the definition of average--therefore, they get
to define the autistic brain pattern as the "problem" variant, and
their own as the "normal"). In an alternate universe, maybe the
autistic brain chemistry IS the norm, but, because it's the typical
version, it is THOSE people who are best able to function in society,
whereas the people with the non-autistic pattern cannot relate to the
"average" person and therefore feel like they have a "disorder". It's
all about the "standard" human treating those with minority genes as
equals: white skin is not considered a "disorder" even though it's more
prone to skin cancer and it's the deviant, mutated gene off of the
majority coloured skin pigment like the one I have. I do not think any
less of people without pigment in their skin or hair or eyes, even if
they are more cancer-prone. I don't think lack of pigmentation is some
sort of horrible thing needing extra attention. So, why should people
think of the autistic brain pattern as being something that needs extra
attention? BTW, I'd like to hear some examples of "problems" that you
run into. You find difficulty relating to many people and feel that
they have difficulty relating to you???
It's not like cancer, or
> even something like back pain, that will always hurt. But like back
> pain, you've got to replace a big important part of you to "fix" it, so
> what is the point?
Replace your brain? No. You cannot change your brain's genetic
structure. But, you CAN alter the environmental factors that
contribute to your difficulties. This does not mean you should
eliminate your differences; you should work to make your differences as
socially accepted and understood as any of anyone else's differences;
you shouldn't be either proud OR ashamed of your differences--it's
simply YOU. Why should your brain chemistry even be an issue? Why
should it be any more of a perceived and rationalized difference among
people than any of our other countless genes? I like ice cream a lot.
I think it's a safe bet that most people do. But, if I were to find
out that someone did NOT like ice cream, should I forever from that
point forward define that person as "person who doesn't like ice
cream--weird, different person"? Should I try to change that person's
genetic predisposition to not like ice cream? Should I hate or fear
the person because of one minute "abnomality"? Surely, all three
questions sound ridiculous to you, and we ALL know that the answers to
all three would be "no".
>
> Most (if not all) of my friends like me *because* I'm not like everyone
> else
No one is like anyone else. Please don't lump together all people
WITHOUT your brain composition as being one and the same any more
readily than you'd lump together all people WITH your brain composition
as being one and the same. (Or, maybe this is what you do without even
realizing it...???)
(not because I'm a good subject of jokes, but because I don't do
> all the stupid crap that "normal" people drag others through)
"Stupid crap"?? "'Normal' people"?? I didn't realize all us
non-Aspergers, all us "normal" folk, were all the same, or that we all
did the same "stupid crap". Maybe I think you've done some stupid shit
in your life. Again, what is with the blanket generalizations?
and I'm
> very intelligent and able to understand and solve things that most of
> the people I know have many more "problems" solving.
Again, unrelated. There are intelligent people who don't have
Aspergers. Conversely, there aren't really any UNINTELLIGENT people
who do have Aspergers. This suggests that the environmental condition
of being smarter than the average folk could lead to the general "life
difficulties" that we refer to as Aspergers/autism. Not ALL
intelligent people develop Aspergers, but again, we're talking
different environments and biological makeups. To me, this suggests
that Aspergers is not even really a disorder, but that there's simply a
WIDE RANGE of variations among intelligent people from those without
any "autism"-type characteristics whatsoever to those with full-blown
autism. Again, it's just simple genetic variation. Just like there's
no black-and-white between "fat" and "skinny", and it's a continuum,
it's the same with these mental "disorders". Again: who's to say
you're not more "normal" than someone "normal"?
>
> So... for me, at least, it balances out. There may be problems, but
> there are downsides to not smoking. There are downsides to owning a car.
> There are downsides to living in a hot country. There are downsides to
> living in a cold country. There are downsides to living.
What are the downsides to being a self-diagnosed Aspergers person?
What are the upsides? You're only using vagueness, blanket statments,
prejudices, and generalizations to make your points about your
"disorder"?
>
> It's impossible to have a perfect life, and while I'm not purporting to
> be perfect or trouble free, I am seen to be not only worthy of living,
> but to be a contributing member to society.
As we all are. The fact that you would even consider otherwise,
feeling you have to point it out, shows that you have been brought up
to think of your genetic makeup as being an "inferior" or "wrong" one.
I have a job and I pay my
> taxes, and I have family, friends, and people that find me not only to
> be a nice person, but one that they want to be around.
And why wouldn't they? It's not like you're from some alien planet
that NOBODY on this one can understand the first thing about!
So why should I
> have been born "normal" when the people around me are happy to accept
> that I am different?
How are you any more or less deviant from the norm than Riggs, Fontana,
Bun Mui, TAFKAP, Barbara Walters, Yanni, or the Queen of England?
Define NORMAL for me, and find me an example of just one person who's
completely NORMAL in every way. Once again, you are trying to portray
your own differences as being more significant, unique, or important,
or harder to bear, than any of my differences or any of anyone else's.
If someone like Charles Riggs or Bob Lieblich can put up with my quirks
and ABSURDITIES at this board, if people can tolerate Marinelli's
atypically bitchy personality, Fontana's oddness, CJ's being a kid, Bun
Mui's being a non-native English speaker, Riggs' mood swings, Cooper's
boring and arrogant postings, or Jay Stevens' complete lack of business
savvy, then what makes you think they shouldn't be able to tolerate
YOUR personality or the way that YOU view the world? AGAIN: I have
seen MUCH STRANGER than you; and, in fact, you're relatively "normal"
compared to MOST people I've met online and off, I hate to tell you, as
you apparently view showing any semblance of normality as being a bad
thing...
> No. It explains how I'm different. Are you suggesting that "BROWN HAIR"
> and "BLONDE HAIR" are not accurate descriptions for someone if having
> that hair colour doesn't cause them any problems?
They are. But it's essentially a non-issue to all who live whether or
not someone has blonde or brown hair. Why make your brain structure an
issue? BTW, blonde hair may not cause any problems--but it is still a
genetic mutation from pigmented hair. It was probably originally one
with worth to northern Caucasians who lived in cold climates, as well.
Of course not - it's
> simply a way for someone to describe themselves, and furthermore to help
> define who they are in a way that is concise and easy for others to
> understand.
I am still having more difficulty than ever understanding what is meant
by "autistic". Since the AUE first mentioned Daniel, no one ever ONCE
gave me a legit and sensible answer as to what this genetic variation
required being marked by people anyway. I also still do not perceive
ANY difference between you (and the way you portray yourself) and any
typical Aspergers-less person that I know, other than the standard
everyone-is-different genetic variations that we all have. Clearly,
you're not exactly like any one person that I know. But, in general,
you're not UNLIKE every Asperger-less person I know, in any way
whatsoever. You actually seem quite similar to many people in the AUE
(who knows--maybe they have Aspergers too!).
It is easier for me to say "Autistic" than "Have occasional
> problems with social interaction, but am generally okay, and am very
> good at thinking logically and rationally, with a high intelligence for
> understanding and solving problems."
But, MANY people, with or without Aspergers, have problems with social
interaction. Did you not see some of the snide comments that people
directed at me becaue I had the "audacity" to look at this issue from a
different point of view? (Believe it or not, I've actually made these
people MORE open-minded and more willing to think outside the box than
they used to be!) People think MY USE OF CAPS FOR EMPHASIS, my long
posts, and my blunt way of speaking (see Mike Lyle) indicate "lack of
social skills"--bullshit!! I simply don't censor myself. Are there
going to be people who disagree with my approach? Yup. Are there
going to be people who even think it is "wrong" that I say what I say
and do what I do and react how I do? You bet! And you know what? I
don't let Mike Lyle affect me! He doesn't like that my way of
communicating may be different (though not better or worse!) than his??
I don't give two pieces of horse shit! Are there people who think
Riggs has poor social skills because of his occasional
anger/depression? Yes! I could keep going on, giving examples of
specific individuals like this all day--I'm hard-pressed to come up
with an AUE member who HASN'T, as least by one other person, been
accused of having "social problems". We are not all Aspergers people!
It's just the way we are. EVERYONE can be socially awkward or socially
rude or inappropriate at times. Yes, LITERALLY EVERYONE!! Were there
to be an "average", "normal" person of normal intelligence at a social
gathering with, say, 10 Aspergers people, the "normal" person would
likely be the one with the most "social difficulty".
Again: it all comes back to everything's being relative to everything
else. In an alternate world, it is people with Aspergers who are the
norm, and the "normal" people, the minority, are the ones who are
socially awkward and uncomfortable around the average person. Your
social problems have more to do with the way others perceive and treat
you BECAUSE of the way you are. It's not that your being the way you
are DIRECTLY DISABLES you from socializing easily. It's others who
cause mental "problems" in people, not the person himself. It is
because you have higher-than-average intelligence that OTHER PEOPLE
find it difficult to relate to/understand you. Because "average"
people merely have "average" intelligence. YOU don't just have
difficulty relating to them; THEY have as much difficulty, if not more,
relating to YOU. The only reason THEY are not the one with the
diagnosed "problem" is because THEY are the majority.
You CAN, believe it or not, train yourself to have more in common with
people of average intelligence, i.e. the majority of people. However,
this might not interest you. As long as YOU don't mind your sometime
difficulty in social interactions, then WHY should you view it as being
a "disorder" rather than simply a variation that MOST people don't
have? Do you think that the Aspergers-free people who have difficulty
socializing with you consider it a mental problem of theirs that they
have difficulty in understanding why you are the way you are and/or in
being able to make conversation with you? Probably not--but maybe they
SHOULD. It takes TWO people to interact socially!
>
> > BTW, depression, addiction (to non-substances), being overweight,
> > panic attacks, compulsive eating, OCD, ADHD, pot addiction, and even
> > bipolarism, multiple personality disorder, and schizophrenia DO NOT
> > THREATEN A PERSON'S HEALTH!
>
> Addiction (and being overweight) can kill you.
Nope. Addiction to newpapers or pornography or gambling or TV cannot
kill you. Being OBESE can kill you--being "overweight" poses no health
risks, short or long-term.
Autism can kill you in
> the same way that being human can kill you. Being alive can kill you.
Exactly. Everyone dies some time.
> You're using some sort of strange non-logic which means "If something is
> a problem, then it will kill you, and if it doesn't, then you didn't
> have it anyway."
I never said that. I said if something does not pose a threat to your
health, then it is not a bodily problem. It is merely a variation, and
there's no need to have a name and a stereotype for every possible
human genetic variation.
> Autism isn't a mental disorder - it's a neurological syndrome.
I am glad to hear someone state that, FINALLY. Although, I have seen
it listed time and again on "mental health" websites. I don't think
it's a "neurological syndrome" either; it is merely a genetic
variation. Is high intelligence or a fear of heights or a love of
sweets a "neurological syndrome" as well? Nope. They're simply
genetic differences in the brain's composition. EACH of our brains is
composed differently than EVERYONE else's. It's what makes us all have
unique tastes and preferences.
My brain
> is different - there's nothing wrong with my personality. You're
> equating "hardware" with "software" when it's my hardware that's
> different.
So, autism is a PHYSICAL disorder of the brain then? Are you certain?
I've never heard of anyone being diagnosed with Aspergers or autism by
a brain scan.
I process things differently, but that doesn't inherently
> mean I've got any particular emotional problems or am psychotic or
> something.
Process things different from who? How do you know this? You've only
ever had your own brain...how do you know that you don't actually
process things in the exact same way as everyone else does?
Autism may have caused a situation that might cause me to be
> depressed, but I'm not depressed, and don't have any issues with who I
> am or that I'm autistic, beyond learning the boundaries between what is
> "normal" and what I am.
Explain these "boundaries" please. What are you prevented from doing?
Again, I don't know how many ways I can phrase this, but you seem
"normal" as can be, and, as you are probably already aware, "normal" is
not really a word that I give much credit to.
>
> > IRONICALLY, people with these disorders are often viewed as "normal",
> > or just doing teenage stuff, or just going through a PHASE.
>
> I was viewed as "just going through a phase", but after I was about 5,
> they realised this was not the case. I'm a relatively happy person, and
> my life is not going downhill, so my friends and family have accepted me
> as I am and are happy with who I am.
Your phase or genetic variation, like I said before, does not cause
anyone--yourself included--any harm. My question was why are drug
abusers often treated as if they are going through a phase, rather than
being hated and shunned and stereotyped, like people with other brain
disorders are? What, at age 5, made you seem unusual? WHAT was your
"phase"?
>
> Still, I'm not viewed as "normal", and wouldn't want to be. I'm happy to
> be viewed as me, and also as human, and to a lesser extent as autistic.
Who says you're not viewed as normal? You're arguably the most normal
person I've ever spoken to at the AUE! But what the hell is wrong with
being normal? Be different because you truly ARE different, not
because it's cool to be different or you just wanna be different for
the sake of being different.
>
> > Alcoholism, drug addiction, ESPECIALLY people with cigarette
> > addictions, and even anorexics and bulemics, are not only generally
> > TOLERATED by society, they're often even ENCOURAGED!
>
> I don't understand your point... that I should be medicated,
> or that society encourages me to be more autistic?
Huh? My point is that YOU shouldn't be medicated or treated like
you've got a problem, or like you're going to attack anyone you meet.
Maybe I am dated, but when my schizophrenic aunt was alive, she was
often put in a straight jacket and locked up, just because she was
different from the "average" person! I do think that society only
encourages people with disorders to become more defined by and
dependent on their disorders. I don't doubt that societal views and
bias HAS possibly increased your autism, although I barely detect any
"abnormality" in you anyways--so, again, I have to really wonder what
it is that's "wrong" with you...
My point was also that society should, rather than ostracize and hate
people with autism or schizophrenia or paranoia or hypochondria (all
"problems" which harm no one), they should shun and ostracize and hate
bulemics, smokers, drug addicts, etc. It is people with THOSE
disorders who cause harm to themselves and others. Their MENTAL harm
causes themselves and others PHYSICAL harm. And it is often condoned,
while harmless people like you or Riggs or my aunt are deemed
"psychotic" and "dangerous"; again, it's all societal stereotype:
people laugh about and encourage alcoholism, smoking, anorexia, etc,
and actually think people with these problems are "cool" because
alcohol, smoking, being Ethiopian-skinny are all "in" things,
fashionable things in our society. Being highly intelligent or having
a different way of looking at things or displaying emotions or thinking
outside the box are NOT fashionable, popular, or hip, so people like us
are shunned. People like Riggs, with "diagonosable" mental deviancies
that are not dangerous to anyone, are locked up and hated; people like
you and me and Fontana and Draney and Liebs are simply ridiculed and
avoided, and eventually there are disorders created for us--just so
that "normal" people don't have to deal with or tolerate people
behaving or thinking in a way that they do not like or cannot
understand.
>
> > WHY ARE THE TRUE MENTAL DISORDERS, THE ONES THAT AFFECT THE PHYSCIAL
> > HEALTH OF THE PERSON AND EVEN OTHER INNOCENTS, JOKED ABOUT AND
> > CONDONED AND EVEN ENCOURAGED...YET THE HARMLESS ONES LIKE AUTISM,
> > DEPRESSION, BIPOLARISM, AND SCHIZOPHRENIA ARE FEARED!
>
> You seem to be the only one who hates me.
Learn to read!
>I'm not being locked up,
> because I'm happy with who I am and not about to kill anyone.
I just said that! But my point was that society would have people
believe that you, because you come across as "different", ARE, in fact,
dangerous. They don't care if it's true or not! Your differences
aren't "cool" and fashionable, unlike bulemia or alcohol dependency.
My point: schizophrenics, manic-depressives, OCD's, and autistics are
medicated and sent to shrinks for "change" therapy at best; locked up,
hated, harassed, and treated as sub-human because they have unique
thoughts and personalities, at worst! Yet, the people with TRULY
dangerous and harmful disorders, like drug addicts and alcoholics, are
felt sorry for and their lunatic behaviors are even condoned or
applauded by many! You NEVER see a bulemic 14-year-old
"image-conscious" chick in a shrink, or an 18-year-old stoner taking
medication to free himself from his dangerous dependency on drugs and
alcohol. Why? Because these image-conscious teens are striving to be
popular, to be liked by all. Go to see SHRINKS??? Yeah, right! Talk
about an image-killer!
It is because highly intelligent people who develop "disorders" like
Aspergers, bipolar, or multiple personality couldn't care less what
people think of them that these people are often forced to see shrinks.
Because they don't care one way or the other, they basically let the
shrinks tell them whatever the shrink's gonna say. By this point, the
person with the "disorder" has been convinced all his/her life that his
being different from normal is a BAD thing, a thing that needs to be
changed. And people accept this! It's sick!
I'm
> different, and I want people to know that, but that doesn't mean I'm bad
> or wrong... it just helps define who I am and how I react and feel.
How is it that you react and feel? Why does that need definition?
> I don't understand... so you're saying the DJ represents the world
> opinion,
I am saying he likely represents the majority IGNORANT opinion.
or that he enforces law? Because the fact some guy I've never
> heard or supported said that a depressed person should take an (illegal)
> drug that makes some people feel happy doesn't mean anything to me...
> the only evidence it seems to represent is that you have problems
> thinking logically and rationally.
Once again, you MISSED THE POINT!!! I will speak S-L-O-W-L-Y for the
mentally-impaired among us!!!
A. SOCIETAL VIEWS/MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING MENTAL PROBLEMS:
1. drug addiction, bulemia, anorexia, obesity, alcoholism:
--All are not great, but normal problems that many teens and adults
have. In order to appeal to a wide variety of people and in order to
be popular, it is to be expected that many people will have these
problems as teens. We can look past these problems, as they are no big
deal and the person is only doing this stuff temporarily so that they
can come across as a more fashionable person. Normal people are
image-conscious, so we should just be happy that person X is trying to
fit in.
2. all other mental problems:
--It is unfortunate that the person has this problem. Their life must
suck. Why can't they be normal like everyone else? I hope they don't
hurt anyone. They should be medicated. They should see a shrink.
They need serious help before they do something dangerous or illegal.
They need to be reminded that they're different so that they don't try
to act like a normal person and embarass themselves in front of
strangers. Everyone needs to know that they're different because they
make act weirdly. Maybe the shrink can make the person better.
B. ACTUALITY:
1. drug addiction, bulemia, alcoholism, etc:
--Causes health problems. Causes death. Causes death/harm to
innocents [DUI]. ILLEGAL [drug addiction, underage alcohol abuse].
SERIOUS mental problems that MANY people have, but deny that they are
disorders and refuse help because these disorders have become the norm!
2. all other mental problems:
--People's thought process or behavior or emotions are different than
normal, but the people are as happy, healthy, productive, and normal as
anyone else. People are not physically dangerous to themselves or
anyone else. People just want to be treated like everyone else.
GET IT NOW??!! I don't know how better to compare and contrast
society's hypocrisy. If you cannot understand the logic behind this
regarding WHY this is hypocritical, dangerous, bigoted, and WRONG that
society have these views, then you are a lost cause. As someone who
scored 170 on the LSAT logic/comprehension test that is a necessary
requirement to get into law school, please DO NOT question my logic and
reasoning skills! YOU are the illogical and irrational one!
>
> > How come people don't lock up all the pot addicts and people who
> > can't have fun without getting drunk?!
>
> Because "People" don't run the courts and the prisons. The police and
> government do, and it's their job to decide what is legal or illegal.
Ummm...last I checked, DUI, underage alcohol abuse, and drug addiction
WERE illegal. But, funny, paranoia, ADHD, tourette's, or autism were
NOT!!
We
> can suggest or complain, but at the end of the day we don't really have
> a lot of choice as to whether they lock up drunks and addicts or not.
So, it's OK to you that people with MINOR, HARMLESS disorders like
yours should be sent to doctors, medicated, locked up, or forced to
change because you're "abnormal" according to society; all the while
people with DANGEROUS mental deviancies should be allowed to freely
break the law and run around doing as they please simply because THEIR
disorders are socially-accepted?!! You are a disgrace to all people
who have gone through "mental purification"!
>
> > I'm sure, that THEY are the TRUE dangers to society, whereas you and
> > Daniel are merely misunderstood because you don't try to masque your
> > realness and uniqueness, no?! How come people tolerate this
> > hypocrisy?!?!?!?!!
>
> I'm not a drunk or a pot addict.
OMG! You can't read!
I've tried both, but don't really see
> the point in taking an "additive" to help social situations,
LOLOLOL! I thought your gift-from-God of autism prevented you from
doing "stupid" "normal-people crap"??? What a total poser!!
when I
> don't really care for them very much anyway. I like people, and I love
> learning about them, but I don't like to hang around them too much.
Irrelevant, and I don't care.
>
> Would you call a cat that doesn't want to sit next to other cats a
> danger to itself or other cats? It isn't violent, and will tolerate
> them, but just would rather sit on the other side of the room or go away
> somewhere quiet and do something by itself. There's no violence or anger
> or anything dangerous there at all... so I don't see your problem.
You are once again making my point FOR ME! How come the VIOLENT cats
are praised and viewed as normal, but the QUIET ones are feared and
hated???!!! HOW COME AUTISTIC PEOPLE ARE MEDICATED OR VIEWED AS
"MESSED UP", BUT DRUG ADDICTS AREN'T????!!!
de...@aol.com
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005, Rowe Rickenbacker wrote
>
> -snip-
>
> > There's no violence or anger or anything dangerous there at all...
> > so I don't see your problem.
>
> His problem, Tom, is that the poster you're replying to long ago made
> it clear that anyone who doesn't fit his particular (and
> remarkably narrow) definition of "normal" is weird, dysfunctional, and
> well....weird and dysfunctional...and should probably be locked away so
> that they don't offend against his conception of what ought to
> constitute normal behaviour.
>
> You've composed an exceedingly level-headed and reasonable response to
> someone who's made it very clear that he's proud of his lack of
> understanding and empathy with anyone who doesn't fit his preconceived
> notion of normality.
>
> (Indeed, the degree to which he seems unable to empathise with anyone
> who is marginally different to himself is -- I believe, but please
> correct me if I'm wrong -- an indicator of autisism.)
>
> For what it's worth, I greatly admire your tolerance but the poster is
> either autistic himself, or falls into the category of those who just
> don't *want* to learn.
>
You are really, really, REALLY retarded!