Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 roman057 wrote: > Okay, I am not the one to debate facts Yeah, no kidding. .... > So please don't deny facts because they don't fall into your view > of autism; revise your view instead. Roman, you are making it hard on me. How would it look if I violated my own rule and called you stupid? The point of that whole message is that I was NOT saying what you turned right around and attributed to me. Let me quote myself: #> Just to be clear, I would like to iterate that I am not one of those that #> claims that Ms. cannot be autistic. Could I be any clearer? > Now, this being said (and AFTER we are straight on the facts) let me > say the following. She said that autism isn't her only at the end > of Somebody Somewhere--when she was adult. Which is bullshit. Adulthood is irrelevant. Autism is a brain configuration that is permanent. If autism ever was her, it still is. If it is not now, it never was. Basic logic here, Roman. > On the other hand, in > the very beginning of Nobody Nowhere she identified herself with > autism and there was no part of her that wasn't autistic. She > viewed others who tried to counter her autism as intruders into > " her world " . Only a little after she went on to develop > characters of Willie and Carol in order to cope. That is, she > became autistic in normall shells, which is a polar opposite to > what you said. No, it's not. > Then you might think of her going through recovery, and still > nowhere complete one. There is no recovery from autism. What is recovery from autism? Ameliorating some of the more disturbing symptoms? Learning to fake normal behavior? Learning how to deal with the environment more effectively? Tricking yourself into thinking you are a " recovered " autistic, as many have (and their parents too)? It is possible to reduce a lot of the really annoying things about being autistic, but none of that even comes close to " recovering " from autism. It is not like depression, where one can recover and be " normal, " to the extent that they were normal beforehand. Autism IS who an autistic person is. It is a function of a brain that operates differently than normal brains, and there is no recovery from that. Fixing the sensory issues and the anxiety that plague all autistics to one degree or another is possible, as is learnring of normal behaviors. That is not the same as BEING normal... it is NOT recovery. It is masking, nothing more. Ironic that you seem to take the words of Ms. as gospel as far as autistic lore goes, but you categorically disagree with what I say, which you yourself said coincides to a large degree with what Temple Grandin says. How do you pick and choose your autistics to believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 In a message dated Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:01:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, " roman057 " writes: > > Okay, I am not the one to debate facts so lets start from facts first. > How about these: > > 1)Donna had ecolalia as a child > 2)Her first non-ecolalic world started when she was 3 and a half. > 3)As a child she went to special school since she was diagnosed as > autistic. Point number three is new to me. I have not heard of that before. Please cite the source. Jerry > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2002 Report Share Posted February 15, 2002 In a message dated Thu, 14 Feb 2002 5:53:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, " jypsy [ janet norman-bain ] " writes: may be it changed. But > > > she was told it wasn't changed, it was always a disabled school. Then > > > she called her father and asked why did she go to disabled school. He > > > told her it was becaust they thought she was autistic. > > > > > I read that book but forgot that part. Her > >father is apparently in complete denial. > > > > Jerry > > A couple of weeks back, following the death of one of Canada's best loved > radio hosts, Gzowski, the original interview was replayed (first > broadcast in '93) between and Donna (apparently Donna says in her > second book that is the only interviewer she ever felt comfortable > with, my books are loaned out so I can't check any facts...) Anyway..... > Donna said she wrote the book to find out " what kind of mad she was because > " as a child, people had thought her " retarded " or deaf " and she wrote it to > show her professor I believe intending to burn it afterwards. It was he who > wanted to show it to an Autism " expert " and the rest is history. That > interview is online at > http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/Tapestry/archives/2002/012702.html > > -jypsy > > I remember that part of the book but don't remember the purported talk with her father. Back in 1995, some australian reporter published a newspaper article that claimed to " bust " Donna as someone " faking " autism. The reporter called me and up while on a talk show down under and we just gave Donna the benefit of a doubt and disappointed the reporter. It seems to me that one reason why so many people have such a strong attachment to Donna is that she gave autism a much more palatable, exotic image than Temple Grandin, the only person with a life story before hers, with a significant readership. I know many people who admire Temple but she is too aloof and self-contained to be someone that I would want to be. Besides, her writing may be more objective and scientific but it is really dry. Donna is another story. Her stuff is sometimes hard to follow but is more interesting and provocative. She has had more of a life in the way that many of us would like to have one. Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.