Re: Your Responses Are Noted (fundability & liable quality control)

[Guest guest]

My answer is that a job is better than no job, and the person ought

to perform the services agreed upon regardless of what their pay or

benefits are.

If they cannot make a living on the salary provided, or if benefits

are inferior, then it makes no sense for anyone to take the job in

the first place.

It HAS been shown that workers with poor benefits make poor workers,

but it may also be that poor workers cannot find any other job than

those with poor benefits.

The irony here is that workers these days perform so poorly and

companies take such big losses because of it, that the companies

themselves are cutting pay and benefits to the workers.

It is also ironic that such a civilized country as America is slowly

becoming uncivilized in terms of pay and benefits when compared with

Europe, mostly because people have poor work ethics here.

Tom

Administrator

Your Responses Are Noted

If someone without disabilities is only paid minimum wage or close to

it are they more apt to follow the rules when serving those with

disabilities? Especially if they think they can get a job elsewhere

paying the same. Not only that but the ware and tare on their vehicle

is much greater then a pizza delivery person and without any tips!

If an individual providing transportation services is paid $12 an

hour and receives benefits then I believe he or she is going to

follow the rules in order to keep their jobs. The fundability of

certain program I believe reduces the quality of the services

provided in ways that may affect the safety and well being of those

receiving services. It's not a causal relation that I think itself

is liable, but worthy enough to note.

Young

[Guest guest]

My answer is that a job is better than no job, and the person ought

to perform the services agreed upon regardless of what their pay or

benefits are.

If they cannot make a living on the salary provided, or if benefits

are inferior, then it makes no sense for anyone to take the job in

the first place.

It HAS been shown that workers with poor benefits make poor workers,

but it may also be that poor workers cannot find any other job than

those with poor benefits.

The irony here is that workers these days perform so poorly and

companies take such big losses because of it, that the companies

themselves are cutting pay and benefits to the workers.

It is also ironic that such a civilized country as America is slowly

becoming uncivilized in terms of pay and benefits when compared with

Europe, mostly because people have poor work ethics here.

Tom

Administrator

Your Responses Are Noted

If someone without disabilities is only paid minimum wage or close to

it are they more apt to follow the rules when serving those with

disabilities? Especially if they think they can get a job elsewhere

paying the same. Not only that but the ware and tare on their vehicle

is much greater then a pizza delivery person and without any tips!

If an individual providing transportation services is paid $12 an

hour and receives benefits then I believe he or she is going to

follow the rules in order to keep their jobs. The fundability of

certain program I believe reduces the quality of the services

provided in ways that may affect the safety and well being of those

receiving services. It's not a causal relation that I think itself

is liable, but worthy enough to note.

Young

[Guest guest]

Your Responses Are Noted

If someone without disabilities is only paid minimum wage or close to

it are they more apt to follow the rules when serving those with

disabilities? Especially if they think they can get a job elsewhere

paying the same. Not only that but the ware and tare on their vehicle

is much greater then a pizza delivery person and without any tips!

If an individual providing transportation services is paid $12 an hour

and receives benefits then I believe he or she is going to follow the

rules in order to keep their jobs. The fundability of certain program

I believe reduces the quality of the services provided in ways that

may affect the safety and well being of those receiving services. It's

not a causal relation that I think itself is liable, but worthy enough

to note.

************************************************************************

What you are discussing are health issues with regards to services and

smoking in a vehicle, not autism issues alone. This is where the

waters are being muddied and the Media Release is misleading.

Raven

[Guest guest]

It's my right to as a person with autism and especially when I

self-advocate. Your objection is deemed political and is not

concerned. My form of advocacy is adaptaiton in order to preserve the

quality of certain services after my parents pass away. This is

psychosocial evolutions and since you do not experience life with the

disability I have I don't see how your opinion can really effect this

theme of adaptive communication style..

I'm usually socially non-applicable. Least excluding a select few whom

have got to know me. So this court case is going to be a socially

event which is indeed healthy. It is like awakening from regularity of

one world and into the reality of another.

To me this is my autism ground hog day. It might change the future

forever with some sort of social wave affect legally. Its all based

upon a sensitive legal topic and invalidating a yes or no question to

second hand smoke. People whom are sensitive or even normally

responsive to the smoke and whom have disabilities should be protected

regardless. The question is inappropriate and both unlawful and

violating of contracts to conduct the act of smoking while in the car

none the less.

For 30-75 this will be my interest and no avoidable undertaking in

preparation. From theoretics based upon discriminating sciences to the

law I will argue with concern to neglatory business practices based

upon known health factors of smokers whom cannot take breaks while on

duty. The susceptibility ignored and not accommodated for as a smokers

disability is in my regard negligence. Thus resulting in the greater

likelihood of violations of the laws, contracts and neglectfully

raising the risk of exposure to the person with developmental

disabilities.

The accommodation need be one where a smoker needs to have breaks.

Without these breaks he or she is likely to have withdrawal symptoms

that could affect his or her ability to operate within the function of

the job safely. The safety of any individual while in transport comes

first due functionability dysfunctions of operating the transport.

This along with the environmental well being of the individual being

exposed.

Regardless it is indisputable that a smoker cannot smoke while in the

vehicle by law and by contracts agreed upon. This applicable in

commercial operations while employed to serve any kind of client in

transport regardless of functionability. The question is pressure in

these protected circumstances especially due to the nature of the

clientele.

>

> Your Responses Are Noted

>

> If someone without disabilities is only paid minimum wage or close to

> it are they more apt to follow the rules when serving those with

> disabilities? Especially if they think they can get a job elsewhere

> paying the same. Not only that but the ware and tare on their vehicle

> is much greater then a pizza delivery person and without any tips!

>

> If an individual providing transportation services is paid $12 an hour

> and receives benefits then I believe he or she is going to follow the

> rules in order to keep their jobs. The fundability of certain program

> I believe reduces the quality of the services provided in ways that

> may affect the safety and well being of those receiving services. It's

> not a causal relation that I think itself is liable, but worthy enough

> to note.

>

> ************************************************************************

>

> What you are discussing are health issues with regards to services and

> smoking in a vehicle, not autism issues alone. This is where the

> waters are being muddied and the Media Release is misleading.

>

> Raven

>

[Guest guest]

It's my right to as a person with autism and especially when I

self-advocate. Your objection is deemed political and is not

concerned. My form of advocacy is adaptaiton in order to preserve the

quality of certain services after my parents pass away. This is

psychosocial evolutions and since you do not experience life with the

disability I have I don't see how your opinion can really effect this

theme of adaptive communication style..

I'm usually socially non-applicable. Least excluding a select few whom

have got to know me. So this court case is going to be a socially

event which is indeed healthy. It is like awakening from regularity of

one world and into the reality of another.

To me this is my autism ground hog day. It might change the future

forever with some sort of social wave affect legally. Its all based

upon a sensitive legal topic and invalidating a yes or no question to

second hand smoke. People whom are sensitive or even normally

responsive to the smoke and whom have disabilities should be protected

regardless. The question is inappropriate and both unlawful and

violating of contracts to conduct the act of smoking while in the car

none the less.

For 30-75 this will be my interest and no avoidable undertaking in

preparation. From theoretics based upon discriminating sciences to the

law I will argue with concern to neglatory business practices based

upon known health factors of smokers whom cannot take breaks while on

duty. The susceptibility ignored and not accommodated for as a smokers

disability is in my regard negligence. Thus resulting in the greater

likelihood of violations of the laws, contracts and neglectfully

raising the risk of exposure to the person with developmental

disabilities.

The accommodation need be one where a smoker needs to have breaks.

Without these breaks he or she is likely to have withdrawal symptoms

that could affect his or her ability to operate within the function of

the job safely. The safety of any individual while in transport comes

first due functionability dysfunctions of operating the transport.

This along with the environmental well being of the individual being

exposed.

Regardless it is indisputable that a smoker cannot smoke while in the

vehicle by law and by contracts agreed upon. This applicable in

commercial operations while employed to serve any kind of client in

transport regardless of functionability. The question is pressure in

these protected circumstances especially due to the nature of the

clientele.

>

> Your Responses Are Noted

>

> If someone without disabilities is only paid minimum wage or close to

> it are they more apt to follow the rules when serving those with

> disabilities? Especially if they think they can get a job elsewhere

> paying the same. Not only that but the ware and tare on their vehicle

> is much greater then a pizza delivery person and without any tips!

>

> If an individual providing transportation services is paid $12 an hour

> and receives benefits then I believe he or she is going to follow the

> rules in order to keep their jobs. The fundability of certain program

> I believe reduces the quality of the services provided in ways that

> may affect the safety and well being of those receiving services. It's

> not a causal relation that I think itself is liable, but worthy enough

> to note.

>

> ************************************************************************

>

> What you are discussing are health issues with regards to services and

> smoking in a vehicle, not autism issues alone. This is where the

> waters are being muddied and the Media Release is misleading.

>

> Raven

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Regardless it is indisputable that a

smoker cannot smoke while in the vehicle by law and by contracts agreed

upon. This applicable in commercial operations while employed to serve

any kind of client in transport regardless of functionability. The

question is pressure in these protected circumstances especially due to

the nature of the clientele. "

I do not disagree with any of this. What I am saying is that it is not

directly related to autism and as such, putting Autism in the Heading

of the Media Release is misleading.

The cause is worthy.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" It's my right to as a person with autism and especially when I

self-advocate. "

There was a time when you said " Aspies " and " autistics " did not

exist and that it was a state of mind. Now you entitle your press

release " Autism sues... "

" My form of advocacy is adaptaiton in order to preserve the

quality of certain services after my parents pass away. "

Suing somebody to get money to take care of yourself after your

parents die (if that is what you are doing) is not ethical. At any

rate, nothing prevented you from finding another means of

transportation to get you to college, since when a suit happens, the

people that you are suing cannot keep you as a client because of

further risking themselves to lawsuits.

I don't see how not having transportation somewhere imperils future

quality of life.

" This is psychosocial evolutions and since you do not experience

life with the disability I have I don't see how your opinion can

really effect this theme of adaptive communication style. "

You asked for opinions. She gave it to you. She has AS. I have AS.

AS is different for the three of us. It will be different for EVERY

autistic. That you don't like some opinions and like others is your

right, but you ought to recognize that not everyone is going to

agree with you, either outside of a courtroom, or inside of it.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" It's my right to as a person with autism and especially when I

self-advocate. "

There was a time when you said " Aspies " and " autistics " did not

exist and that it was a state of mind. Now you entitle your press

release " Autism sues... "

" My form of advocacy is adaptaiton in order to preserve the

quality of certain services after my parents pass away. "

Suing somebody to get money to take care of yourself after your

parents die (if that is what you are doing) is not ethical. At any

rate, nothing prevented you from finding another means of

transportation to get you to college, since when a suit happens, the

people that you are suing cannot keep you as a client because of

further risking themselves to lawsuits.

I don't see how not having transportation somewhere imperils future

quality of life.

" This is psychosocial evolutions and since you do not experience

life with the disability I have I don't see how your opinion can

really effect this theme of adaptive communication style. "

You asked for opinions. She gave it to you. She has AS. I have AS.

AS is different for the three of us. It will be different for EVERY

autistic. That you don't like some opinions and like others is your

right, but you ought to recognize that not everyone is going to

agree with you, either outside of a courtroom, or inside of it.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I'm usually socially non-applicable. Least excluding a select few whom

have got to know me. So this court case is going to be a socially

event which is indeed healthy. It is like awakening from regularity of

one world and into the reality of another.

To me this is my autism ground hog day. It might change the future

forever with some sort of social wave affect legally. Its all based

upon a sensitive legal topic and invalidating a yes or no question to

second hand smoke. People whom are sensitive or even normally

responsive to the smoke and whom have disabilities should be protected

regardless. The question is inappropriate and both unlawful and

violating of contracts to conduct the act of smoking while in the car

none the less.

For 30-75 this will be my interest and no avoidable undertaking in

preparation. From theoretics based upon discriminating sciences to the

law I will argue with concern to neglatory business practices based

upon known health factors of smokers whom cannot take breaks while on

duty. The susceptibility ignored and not accommodated for as a smokers

disability is in my regard negligence. Thus resulting in the greater

likelihood of violations of the laws, contracts and neglectfully

raising the risk of exposure to the person with developmental

disabilities.

The accommodation need be one where a smoker needs to have breaks.

Without these breaks he or she is likely to have withdrawal symptoms

that could affect his or her ability to operate within the function of

the job safely. The safety of any individual while in transport comes

first due functionability dysfunctions of operating the transport.

This along with the environmental well being of the individual being

exposed.

Regardless it is indisputable that a smoker cannot smoke while in the

vehicle by law and by contracts agreed upon. This applicable in

commercial operations while employed to serve any kind of client in

transport regardless of functionability. The question is pressure in

these protected circumstances especially due to the nature of the

clientele.

It has directly to do with autism because this is a tax-payer funded

autism service provider. I have autism and I am suing for the

protection of others with autism and as well as others with any kind

of developmental disability. Therefore autism as in an autistic or one

with autism is suing.

The underlining positive influence is it shows that people with autism

self-advocate. This might make more people interested in what people

with autism have to say. IT creates a relevancy that indeed some say

something rather then nothing. A social magnetic force of curiosity.

Misleading would be for me to not say I have autism or autism need not

apply at all. Individuals must be informed as much as possible with

respects to the actual reality of myself. I am not just a man but a

man / guy with autism.

I think it is politically positive because voters are more likely to

support these circumstances if they are properly informed. Your say I

am misleading them in your argument is not valid, I am being

informative wit the fact of the circumstance creatively.

It's better to be empowered by knowledge and creative then to be

without tact due to a lack of empowerment through creative knowledge.

" ... <snip> ... Regardless it is indisputable that a

> smoker cannot smoke while in the vehicle by law and by contracts agreed

> upon. This applicable in commercial operations while employed to serve

> any kind of client in transport regardless of functionability. The

> question is pressure in these protected circumstances especially due to

> the nature of the clientele. "

>

> I do not disagree with any of this. What I am saying is that it is not

> directly related to autism and as such, putting Autism in the Heading

> of the Media Release is misleading.

>

> The cause is worthy.

>

> Raven

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... This is psychosocial evolutions and

since you do not experience life with the disability I have I don't

see how your opinion can really effect this theme of adaptive

communication style ... <snip> ... "

You used AUTISM in your Media Release headline as a way to get

people's attention and this is misleading as the subject matter deals

indirectly with Autism and more directly with the smoking situation,

the services received, health issues and employment issues for the

transportation contractors.

Because I have AS just as you do, my opinion is a valid as yours when

discussing matters of Autism.

I ABSOLUTELY experience life with the disability you have, that being

disability being Autism.

It seems to me that every time you return to post on this board that

you take exception with me and turn your replies to me into attacks.

I have not done this to you. There is no reason for you to do this

to me.

You asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... This is psychosocial evolutions and

since you do not experience life with the disability I have I don't

see how your opinion can really effect this theme of adaptive

communication style ... <snip> ... "

You used AUTISM in your Media Release headline as a way to get

people's attention and this is misleading as the subject matter deals

indirectly with Autism and more directly with the smoking situation,

the services received, health issues and employment issues for the

transportation contractors.

Because I have AS just as you do, my opinion is a valid as yours when

discussing matters of Autism.

I ABSOLUTELY experience life with the disability you have, that being

disability being Autism.

It seems to me that every time you return to post on this board that

you take exception with me and turn your replies to me into attacks.

I have not done this to you. There is no reason for you to do this

to me.

You asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion.

Raven

[Guest guest]

>

> " It's my right to as a person with autism and especially when I

> self-advocate. "

>

> There was a time when you said " Aspies " and " autistics " did not

> exist and that it was a state of mind. Now you entitle your press

> release " Autism sues... "

--- At one point I believed it better to not in any philosophy concern

oneself as either. That thei nfluence of the concepts affect the mind

when a mind should be free from such conceptological realities as

possible.-----

>

> " My form of advocacy is adaptaiton in order to preserve the

> quality of certain services after my parents pass away. "

>

> Suing somebody to get money to take care of yourself after your

> parents die (if that is what you are doing) is not ethical. At any

> rate, nothing prevented you from finding another means of

> transportation to get you to college, since when a suit happens, the

> people that you are suing cannot keep you as a client because of

> further risking themselves to lawsuits.

>

--- I am not sueing for the sole purpose of money but to awaken the

improvement of the standard. IT is a common stereotype people sue just

for money. Indeed without an ethical base to this lawsuit there would

be no lawsuit. The law is ethical, least in regards to this situation

to assure quality improvements.

I'm not sure that other transporation is readily availible. The

company is in trouble and if I was to obide ot the attention of

negative opinon for my audacities then why would others. They and I

should keep quite and let slip violations of the laws and contracts in

fear of losing something. It's small claims and small claims is

limited. IT's for $50 to $7,500 and if I am ethically asked what

amount I think I should recieve I won't be able to answere. My task

shows I am brave but not selfish. Perhaps others owuld want to be in

my place becuase I really don't.

---------

> I don't see how not having transportation somewhere imperils future

> quality of life.

----

When I lived alone before I could not get to the grocery store. I had

health problems and I'm not sure if you truelly understand me. When I

was in business as you know of it was not a regular business. Someone

brought food to me.

----

>

> " This is psychosocial evolutions and since you do not experience

> life with the disability I have I don't see how your opinion can

> really effect this theme of adaptive communication style. "

>

> You asked for opinions. She gave it to you. She has AS. I have AS.

> AS is different for the three of us. It will be different for EVERY

> autistic. That you don't like some opinions and like others is your

> right, but you ought to recognize that not everyone is going to

> agree with you, either outside of a courtroom, or inside of it.

It was accusational her opinon to state in anyway it was misleading.

It's just negative reaction for past disagreements and neither of oyu

should ethically argue against this. Both of you drive, you just have

A.S and both of you are high functioning enough to adapt. It's not

really either of your places honestly to jusge me nor anyone who does

not have autism in a court room. It's deemed discrimination by anyone

without autism.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Misleading would be for me to not say

I have autism or autism need not apply at all. Individuals must be

informed as much as possible with respects to the actual reality of

myself. I am not just a man but a man / guy with autism. I think it

is politically positive because voters are more likely to support

these circumstances if they are properly informed. Your say I am

misleading them in your argument is not valid, I am being informative

wit the fact of the circumstance creatively ... <snip> ... "

Yes, and the media could decide that your 'creative' presentation has

very little to do with Autism because it has everything to do with

endangering another person's health (due to second hand smoke) and

well being.

The media is not a forgiving creature and once they feel they have

been misled, they are less willing to assist you by covering the

story in the manner it could best have been covered, if they even

bother to cover it at all. They could also choose to stand against

you in their media coverage which means a disserve will be done to

all Autistics because of the initial Media Release you sent out.

One must always consider all sides of the equation before sending out

a Media Release and plug up as many holes as may be found while

providing good sound reasons why the media should be interested in

the story at all.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" ... <snip> ... This is psychosocial evolutions and

> since you do not experience life with the disability I have I don't

> see how your opinion can really effect this theme of adaptive

> communication style ... <snip> ... "

>

> You used AUTISM in your Media Release headline as a way to get

> people's attention and this is misleading as the subject matter deals

> indirectly with Autism and more directly with the smoking situation,

> the services received, health issues and employment issues for the

> transportation contractors.

-----

Nonesense raven the indirect is just point of view of bias as it is a

direct association. When the story has directly to do with a service

privder that provides services for those with developmental

disabilities. I have autism and it's about second hand smoke to people

with autism and other people with developmental disabilities.

I will use my autism to market myself anyway I want. Likely your

jelious in some egotistic sense and desire yourself popularity which

such creative ambitions.

>

> Because I have AS just as you do, my opinion is a valid as yours when

> discussing matters of Autism.

Your to higher functioning and would not qualify for services like

this. Nothing was misleading and it has directly to do with autism

services for autistics. You were accusational that I was misleading

and perhaps your approach could be better.

>

> I ABSOLUTELY experience life with the disability you have, that being

> disability being Autism.

>

> It seems to me that every time you return to post on this board that

> you take exception with me and turn your replies to me into attacks.

> I have not done this to you. There is no reason for you to do this

> to me.

>

> You asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion.

>

> Raven

----

My autism differs from yours and there are only few times I have

talked online with people like my experience. To be honest there are

only few on these forums which have releated to me in general ways of

how it is in general me or them function in the world.

A.S is a seperate though relating condition. The developmental

histologies differ in criterion. My expression should be endorced and

not discrimated against for the adaptation which least in most

respects neither of you qualify to relate to.

The regional center nor the transporation service provider offer

services to people with A.S.

----

>

[Guest guest]

Alright. My point was merely that when you say " Autism sues... " you

are making a blamket statement that the " difference " itself sues, and

I, as an autistic, do not have your particular brand of autism.

Therefore, to lump ME, and anyother autistic that is not like you,

into your suit by proxy is unfair.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Alright. My point was merely that when you say " Autism sues... " you

are making a blamket statement that the " difference " itself sues, and

I, as an autistic, do not have your particular brand of autism.

Therefore, to lump ME, and anyother autistic that is not like you,

into your suit by proxy is unfair.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I have already talked to the media here and they take my story very

seriously. In fact the health editor I was told would possible

investigate.

My father writes for the media and I was already offered a letter to

the editor which at the time I declined. I believe it effective,

reasonable, eye grabbing and I don't believe it rational to believe it

was intended to be misleading or it is at all misleading.

" ... <snip> ... Misleading would be for me to not say

> I have autism or autism need not apply at all. Individuals must be

> informed as much as possible with respects to the actual reality of

> myself. I am not just a man but a man / guy with autism. I think it

> is politically positive because voters are more likely to support

> these circumstances if they are properly informed. Your say I am

> misleading them in your argument is not valid, I am being informative

> wit the fact of the circumstance creatively ... <snip> ... "

>

> Yes, and the media could decide that your 'creative' presentation has

> very little to do with Autism because it has everything to do with

> endangering another person's health (due to second hand smoke) and

> well being.

>

> The media is not a forgiving creature and once they feel they have

> been misled, they are less willing to assist you by covering the

> story in the manner it could best have been covered, if they even

> bother to cover it at all. They could also choose to stand against

> you in their media coverage which means a disserve will be done to

> all Autistics because of the initial Media Release you sent out.

>

> One must always consider all sides of the equation before sending out

> a Media Release and plug up as many holes as may be found while

> providing good sound reasons why the media should be interested in

> the story at all.

>

> Raven

>

[Guest guest]

I have already talked to the media here and they take my story very

seriously. In fact the health editor I was told would possible

investigate.

My father writes for the media and I was already offered a letter to

the editor which at the time I declined. I believe it effective,

reasonable, eye grabbing and I don't believe it rational to believe it

was intended to be misleading or it is at all misleading.

" ... <snip> ... Misleading would be for me to not say

> I have autism or autism need not apply at all. Individuals must be

> informed as much as possible with respects to the actual reality of

> myself. I am not just a man but a man / guy with autism. I think it

> is politically positive because voters are more likely to support

> these circumstances if they are properly informed. Your say I am

> misleading them in your argument is not valid, I am being informative

> wit the fact of the circumstance creatively ... <snip> ... "

>

> Yes, and the media could decide that your 'creative' presentation has

> very little to do with Autism because it has everything to do with

> endangering another person's health (due to second hand smoke) and

> well being.

>

> The media is not a forgiving creature and once they feel they have

> been misled, they are less willing to assist you by covering the

> story in the manner it could best have been covered, if they even

> bother to cover it at all. They could also choose to stand against

> you in their media coverage which means a disserve will be done to

> all Autistics because of the initial Media Release you sent out.

>

> One must always consider all sides of the equation before sending out

> a Media Release and plug up as many holes as may be found while

> providing good sound reasons why the media should be interested in

> the story at all.

>

> Raven

>

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote: " ... <snip> ... You asked for opinions. She gave it to

you. She has AS. I have AS. AS is different for the three of us. It

will be different for EVERY autistic. That you don't like some opinions

and like others is your right, but you ought to recognize that not

everyone is going to agree with you, either outside of a courtroom, or

inside of it. "

wrote back: " ... <snip> ... It was accusational her opinon to

state in anyway it was misleading. It's just negative reaction for

past disagreements and neither of oyu should ethically argue against

this. Both of you drive, you just have A.S and both of you are high

functioning enough to adapt. It's not really either of your places

honestly to jusge me nor anyone who does not have autism in a court

room. It's deemed discrimination by anyone without autism ...

<snip> ... "

Here we go again, I see.

Making an observation and then giving my opinion, based on how many

Media Releases I put out in a year and most of which result in positive

media coverage, is not being accusational. But I can see that you are

going to continue to insist that it is, hoping that I will attack you

as you are attacking me. That won't happen, .

How can you be so dismissive of another's AS diagnosis? Do I ever post

that you 'just have AS'? I do not. I would appreciate it if you would

not attempt to lessen who I am by making dismissive comments such as

the ones you have made about me in your post.

Asperger Syndrome is Autism so I don't understand what you are going on

about when you say that I do not have Autism.

As for judging you, you asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion.

It was not a judgment against you but rather observations on your Media

Release. YOU made it personal because YOU do not like my opinion. I

am not about to change my opinion so you can feel ok about the Media

Release if I believe there are misleading components to your Media

Release.

You scream about discrimination against you as an Autistic but you

obviously do not have any problems whatsoever with discrimination

against Autistics who do not agree with YOUR line of reasoning.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote: " ... <snip> ... You asked for opinions. She gave it to

you. She has AS. I have AS. AS is different for the three of us. It

will be different for EVERY autistic. That you don't like some opinions

and like others is your right, but you ought to recognize that not

everyone is going to agree with you, either outside of a courtroom, or

inside of it. "

wrote back: " ... <snip> ... It was accusational her opinon to

state in anyway it was misleading. It's just negative reaction for

past disagreements and neither of oyu should ethically argue against

this. Both of you drive, you just have A.S and both of you are high

functioning enough to adapt. It's not really either of your places

honestly to jusge me nor anyone who does not have autism in a court

room. It's deemed discrimination by anyone without autism ...

<snip> ... "

Here we go again, I see.

Making an observation and then giving my opinion, based on how many

Media Releases I put out in a year and most of which result in positive

media coverage, is not being accusational. But I can see that you are

going to continue to insist that it is, hoping that I will attack you

as you are attacking me. That won't happen, .

How can you be so dismissive of another's AS diagnosis? Do I ever post

that you 'just have AS'? I do not. I would appreciate it if you would

not attempt to lessen who I am by making dismissive comments such as

the ones you have made about me in your post.

Asperger Syndrome is Autism so I don't understand what you are going on

about when you say that I do not have Autism.

As for judging you, you asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion.

It was not a judgment against you but rather observations on your Media

Release. YOU made it personal because YOU do not like my opinion. I

am not about to change my opinion so you can feel ok about the Media

Release if I believe there are misleading components to your Media

Release.

You scream about discrimination against you as an Autistic but you

obviously do not have any problems whatsoever with discrimination

against Autistics who do not agree with YOUR line of reasoning.

Raven

[Guest guest]

I think you're to attaching of the condition itself as something

implying when it obviously is not as so put forth as one individual.

Supporting this cause I believe creatively, assertively and

intelligently surfaces a problem which few hear about. Anything at my

disposal including marketing stratagems should be reasonable to you as

if not considered beneficial otherwise suspicious of a nonsense. A

potentially harmful nonsense or strategic disempowerment indirectly

for certain…

I believe it best to look past this misunderstanding and look to the

positive causal potentials.

>

> Alright. My point was merely that when you say " Autism sues... " you

> are making a blamket statement that the " difference " itself sues, and

> I, as an autistic, do not have your particular brand of autism.

> Therefore, to lump ME, and anyother autistic that is not like you,

> into your suit by proxy is unfair.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Your to higher functioning and would

not qualify for services like this ... <snip> ... "

My child who is also AS and I do not qualify for the services you

receive because of people like you who constantly say that AS is not

really autism when it absolutely IS autism.

My child cannot access the services he very much requires because

people assume that as a verbal person with autism he should be able

to just get over his autism and function as non-autistics function.

That is incorrect and discriminatory and people should stop claiming

such.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... My autism differs from yours ...

<snip> ... "

Exactly so do not tell me that I am wrong to have the opinion I do

just because it doesn't concur with your own opinion.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... A.S is a seperate though relating

condition. The developmental histologies differ in criterion ...

<snip> ... "

It is AUTISM nonetheless. It is not separate. It is not a related

condition. It is not AUTISM LIGHT. It is not MILD AUTISM. It is

AUTISM.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... The regional center nor the

transporation service provider offer services to people with A.S. "

That's because people with AS are routinely discriminated against and

as such, fare much worse than people who are diagnosed HFA when it

comes to being able to secure appropriate resources and services.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Your to higher functioning and would

not qualify for services like this ... <snip> ... "

My child who is also AS and I do not qualify for the services you

receive because of people like you who constantly say that AS is not

really autism when it absolutely IS autism.

My child cannot access the services he very much requires because

people assume that as a verbal person with autism he should be able

to just get over his autism and function as non-autistics function.

That is incorrect and discriminatory and people should stop claiming

such.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... My autism differs from yours ...

<snip> ... "

Exactly so do not tell me that I am wrong to have the opinion I do

just because it doesn't concur with your own opinion.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... A.S is a seperate though relating

condition. The developmental histologies differ in criterion ...

<snip> ... "

It is AUTISM nonetheless. It is not separate. It is not a related

condition. It is not AUTISM LIGHT. It is not MILD AUTISM. It is

AUTISM.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... The regional center nor the

transporation service provider offer services to people with A.S. "

That's because people with AS are routinely discriminated against and

as such, fare much worse than people who are diagnosed HFA when it

comes to being able to secure appropriate resources and services.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Your to higher functioning and would

not qualify for services like this ... <snip> ... "

My child who is also AS and I do not qualify for the services you

receive because of people like you who constantly say that AS is not

really autism when it absolutely IS autism.

My child cannot access the services he very much requires because

people assume that as a verbal person with autism he should be able

to just get over his autism and function as non-autistics function.

That is incorrect and discriminatory and people should stop claiming

such.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... My autism differs from yours ...

<snip> ... "

Exactly so do not tell me that I am wrong to have the opinion I do

just because it doesn't concur with your own opinion.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... A.S is a seperate though relating

condition. The developmental histologies differ in criterion ...

<snip> ... "

It is AUTISM nonetheless. It is not separate. It is not a related

condition. It is not AUTISM LIGHT. It is not MILD AUTISM. It is

AUTISM.

wrote: " ... <snip> ... The regional center nor the

transporation service provider offer services to people with A.S. "

That's because people with AS are routinely discriminated against and

as such, fare much worse than people who are diagnosed HFA when it

comes to being able to secure appropriate resources and services.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" A.S is a seperate though relating condition. The developmental

histologies differ in criterion. My expression should be endorced and

not discrimated against for the adaptation which least in most

respects neither of you qualify to relate to. "

What's discriminatory is voiding our opinions because we do not have

what you have. I am saying you have a right to your opinion, but I

do not thingk you have a right to lump the rest of us in with this.

Here is what I see as being the main issue:

These people were under contract to drive you in a smoke free

vehicle. They did not. Therefore, they owe you money because they

voided the terms and conditions of that contract.

Because the contract would have been in effect whether or not you

had autism, there is no point in bringing the autism into it.

That you are sensitive to smoke IS relevant in that it causes you

distress. But secondhand smoke causes people who do NOT have autism

distress too.

Just that you were caused distress ought to be enough to win the

case. I just don't see the need to turn this into an autism thing.

Tom

Administrator