Re: Digest Number 462

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/13/2001 12:00:37 AM US Mountain Standard Time,

mscured writes:

<< please be aware that Turkey is HIGH in URIC-Acid...too much causes GOUT

> (painful joints like Arthritis) . Green PEAS are high in Uric Acid too.

> Cherries and Cherry Juice helps fight GOUT. -Tom- >>

I was told that Uric Acid is usually low in MS patients. I know it has been

for me on every test I've ever had done. In fact that's about the only thing

that's remained consistent with this disease. LOL

[Guest guest]

I was told that Uric Acid is usually low in MS patients. I know it has been for me on every test I've ever had done. In fact that's about the only thing that's remained consistent with this disease. LOL

,

Yes! Now that you mention it, I read that too. Maybe a lot of turkey wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. I think I will try it. I can't eat alot of it, however, because it's not that appealing on an every day basis to me, (since I will only eat the breast, which is dry), but I think I will try using it as one of my protein sources part of the time anyway. I should know fairly quickly if it is bothering me, I think.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Antryg Windrose danced around singing:

>So have I. As I just wrote in a response to , I don't think

>dislike of children is anything bad at all. I have it myself. I merely

>think that there are insulting towards other humans (who happen to be

>parents) ways of expressing it and there are non-insulting ways of

>expressing it that are based around personal dislike rather than rude

>words for parents or kids.

Again, as I pointed out to you, though, there are those of us that have no

clue that anything beyond the absolute most blatant terms like " breeder "

are somehow insulting. I didn't consider " kinderplague " to be insulting,

so much as an accurate term to refer to the many, many diseases that

children by nature carry. (In fact, beyond saying " kinderplague " which I

don't consider an insult any more than " children with colds, flus,

bronchitis, chicken pox, etc etc etc " is, and " breeder " which is a highly

specific term not referring to all parents, I have no clue what horrible

specific concrete words I used that were " insulting. " )

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> In fact, even being able to understand the phrase " read between the

> lines " requires reading between the lines (even if it's memorizing the

> entire phrase as a single word.)

That is how I use metaphors and figures of speech. I use them freqently in my

writing, even though that sort of thing does not come easily. I memorize the

whole phrase as what I call a metaword, where the whole phrase (with spaces) is

parsed in the same way as any word. Even so, when I am reading, I often first

parse the phrase literally ( " it's raining cats and dogs " gives me a mental

picture of Fidos and Fluffys falling from the sky), and only after the last

character of the metaword has been read do I recognize it as a metaword, and I

reparse it accordingly. I am so accustomed to certain figures of speech that I

scarcely notice the first parsing, although I am aware that it still happened.

With unfamiliar figures of speech, I parse them literally, and if that makes

sense, I don't notice that it is a figure of speech. If not, I can usually

analyze the figure of speech and detect its meaning. Not always, though-- I

often have to ask. I would expect it to be similar to this for NTs that

encounter new figures of speech, too.

[Guest guest]

> I don't think it's as subtle and between the lines as that. I have

> trouble with reading subtext but the derogatory way you have plenty of

> times spoken about parents seemed pretty obvious to me.

And that is the *other* problem with claiming to have a pure literal

interpretation of language.

Most often, the things people read " between the lines " (which is

inevitably *something*, even in the most literal sense of words, just

because of how words work, if they are to comprehend a sentence at all)

are not visible to them as doing it. So they say, " I am literal, " when

they often mean, " I read different things between the lines than you do,

and fail to see things between the lines that you do. "

In fact, even being able to understand the phrase " read between the

lines " requires reading between the lines (even if it's memorizing the

entire phrase as a single word.)

--

" Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. " -Andy Warhol

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

>

>

>>I don't think it's as subtle and between the lines as that. I have

>>trouble with reading subtext but the derogatory way you have plenty of

>>times spoken about parents seemed pretty obvious to me.

>

>

> And that is the *other* problem with claiming to have a pure literal

> interpretation of language.

>

> Most often, the things people read " between the lines " (which is

> inevitably *something*, even in the most literal sense of words, just

> because of how words work, if they are to comprehend a sentence at all)

> are not visible to them as doing it. So they say, " I am literal, " when

> they often mean, " I read different things between the lines than you do,

> and fail to see things between the lines that you do. "

>

> In fact, even being able to understand the phrase " read between the

> lines " requires reading between the lines (even if it's memorizing the

> entire phrase as a single word.)

Meaning of words is cultural and something that even verbal autistics

must get from their environment. Whether they might learn from reading

books, watching movies, listening to their family, staying up late at

night listening to shortwave radio behind their fathers' backs or whatever.

One thing I have always found amusing (I was pondering this while doing

the dishes after writing my post to about the possible reason why

" breeder " is taken negatively) is how many animal words are used as

insults, often even by people who might be vegan and claim to regard

animals' lives as highly as any other lifeform. I mentally tried to list

a handful of animal insults and came up with bitch (which has a totally

not rude and not swearing meaning and I used to use that to get myself

out of trouble for saying it as a child), dog, heifer, pig, rat, snake,

slippery eel, bush pig, hog, cow, insect, ape, monkey, galah and at that

point I lost track of which ones I had already mentioned mentally and

which I hadn't. I always wondered as a child why these words which have

no negative connotation about the animal are taken very negatively when

said to a person.

I guess a person who was raised in an environment where animal

terminology was not used as insults so often would probably not

interpret animal references or even words that seem like them to be

negative. The fact that most of these words I listed above are in the

dictionary not only as their " literal " animal meaning but also as their

insulting meaning shows that the majority of the english speaking world

recognises them as derogatory terms.

CZ

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>I didn't know that sproglets was derogatory, but I did know that some

>other things you haven't seen as derogatory could be taken as

>derogatory. (This is what I mean by *different* abilities to read

>between the lines as opposed to *absent* ones.)

I didn't know sproglets was derogatory, either. I'd never

heard it before. What I've heard some people (people I

don't know) say is " rug rats. " Is that derogatory? It

took me a long time to figure out that they were using

the term to refer to children.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Antryg Windrose wrote:

>>I have yet to see anyone on this list mention

>> having carers come to their house or other types of supported living.

>> Correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps those members are just quiet (which

>> would mean I was not referring to them anyway).

and responded:

>I'm in a supported living program (in my own home). I've mentioned it

>on other lists when the topic comes up, but apparently not here.

Over the past eight years, I've been realizing how much

I was in a " supported living " situation while my mother

was alive. She died in 1995 (I was 45 years old then)

and I'm doing the best I can on my own now. Although I

think I'm doing okay, a lot of things have slipped out

of my control. I just can't keep up with things the way

I could when my mother was here to supply direction

and assistance.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Cerulean wrote:

> N, a bit fed up and ready to leave all AS lists

I hope you do not find that necessary. This is just a disagreement... those

happen from time to time. Neither you nor is evil; you just have a

disagreement. It will pass. You and I have had our moments too, but that is in

the past.

[Guest guest]

Cerulean danced around singing:

>--------It has nothing to do with 'reading between the

>lines', in which your continued attempt to refer to me

>as nt has become irritating.

Again, you ARE reading between the lines, because I did not say at all that

you are NT.

> The 'evil' comment was

>not as bad as arguing against stereotypes, anyone

>would make similar conclusions.

It wasn't arguing against stereotypes. I said flat-out it's because you

were engaging in name-calling and just fighting in general with no interest

in a civilized calm discussion.

>-------'Flaming' is defined as name-calling, and I'd

>say calling someone 'evil' is flaming, which you

>didn't bother to point out or address.

No, flaming is *not* defined as name-calling. It is defined as:

" a rude or derogatory, often passionate, message aimed at someone else. "

Regardless, as I said, my moderating of you has nothing to do with how I

handle other members aside from that you fall under different sections of

the rules.

> > Neither did I -- I have no idea why anyone would. I

> > was just pointing out

> > that on AS-Proud the fact that other people were

> > actively saying that your

> > interpretation was inaccurate supports my claim that

> > I meant no harm with

> > my posts.

>

>----And the few who knew what I was saying were, what?

What does that mean? They knew what you were saying, and they knew that

your interpretation of my words was inaccurate.

> > Then you need to not actively refer to other groups

> > as " --- haters " and

> > make assumptions about what they mean when they

> > don't actively say it.

>

>----------Please go re-read both CZ and 's posts

>on this; they make it much clearer than I apparently

>did.

I moderate based on literal language, primarily because that is a list in

which the majority of people are autistic. Period. If someone uses words

that are rude and keeps doing it, they get moderated. If someone uses one

word that is rude and then falls into an intelligent conversation, then

they are not moderated.

>---------What is incorrect about stating stereotypes

>of children are unfair?

Did I SAY that I was referring to stereotypes? No.

> 1. I never stated people *should have* children.

I never said that you did.

> 2. I stated that noise intolerance goes across

>the board, for me, ranging from children to adults.

That's nice. It doesn't for others.

> 3. I stated that the group-think *talk* of those

>childfree lists reads as pretty derogatory.

So? That has nothing to do with why you were moderated.

> 4. You stated that because I had had a child, my

>life was 'average',

In literal terms, " average " is to have a child.

> which is laughable b/c there has

>been *nothing* average about my life; if that is not

>also lumping me into a stereotype I don't know what

>is.

If you had a kid, then that is an average trait. *Most* people have

kids. That is not a stereotype, it is a mathmatical fact. If 90% of the

population is straight, then straight is the average and gay/bi is not.

> You must see your own participation in my

>defensiveness, certainly.

I'm not referring to your defensiveness. I'm referring to your breaking

the rules and making posts that were by definition against the rules. You

can get pissed off all you want -- just don't break the rules, go yell at

the dog or something, then write when you are calm. It's *not* that difficult.

>-------- I have never objected to childfree

>individuals anywhere, at anytime, and I pointed that

>out.

Actually you said flat-out that we are " child-haters " which is not only

inaccurate, it is objectionable.

>CZ is my best friend online and is childfree.

So? I've known racists that justified their comments by saying " but I have

a black friend, I can't be racist! "

>I have more RL friends that are childfree than with with

>children.

That are that way totally by intention because they do not like to be

around children or to devote their time/energy to them -- or that just

happen to not have produced any? There is a huge difference, you know,

between someone that chooses to never reproduce and someone that simply

hasn't done it.

> What I objected to was the 'groupthink

>talk' and politics of it,

I have no idea what you are referring to as " groupthink talk. "

> which, in an earlier post

>you just admitted to CZ *could* come off as sounding

>harsh and offensive.

I said that I could see how some people could MISINTERPRET things so they

would SEEM harsh and offensive. That does not mean that my intention nor

that the literal words are offensive. In fact the majority of people

posting to the other list agreed that there wasn't a single thing that was

offensive in that initial post.

> If you have no attitude toward

>me personally, and asking in all honesty here, then

>why are you able to admit that to someone else, and

>not to me?

What on Earth are you talking about? I said that my words could be

misinterpreted. I have told you repeatedly that you are misinterpreting

me. I have no idea why anyone would say something to one person and not

another; that is not how I work.

> ---------State what you like, but your actions speak

>otherwise.

I'll state what I like and my actions suit my words. It is not my fault

that you are so emotional about things that you can not handle logical,

literal, fact.

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

danced around singing:

>I still don't understand the term " 'my' world " , speaking of language

>interpretation problems. (This may not apply to the above sentence, but

>since I don't know how the term is supposed to be used, I don't know one

>way or the other.)

>

>I originally interpreted references to " worlds " as being about planets.

>When I learned that was not always the case, I figured that it was a

>nebulous term borrowed by autistics from the NT colloquial descriptions

>of someone being " off in their own world, " which is a term I also don't

>have a good definition for.

I actually picked it up as a literal because I grew up playing video

games. Each game offered its own world, and that was the environment that

the character was placed within. So when I say " my world " I mean " the

environment that I have available to explore the majority of the time. " If

I fly cross-country and visit Parrish, then I am in his " world " as that is

the environment that he has available, not the one I am used to. If he

visits me, then he is in " my world " for similar reasons. (Given I am

rather territorial, that is why I have not invited him to visit me yet -- I

am protective of " my world. " )

>I'm sure I have *used* the terminology of " worlds " as part of complex

>echolalic constructions, but I still don't understand what it means

>beyond planets and some other hazy idea I can't figure out. I was

>discussing it with another autistic person recently (in reference to

>Alison Hale (author of _My World Is Not Your World_) and Donna

>(who continually refers to " my world " and " the world " , and whose

>experiences frequently make sense to me but whose use of language and/or

>frameworks to interpret same experiences ranges from eluding me to

>bothering me)). Neither of us could figure out a satisfactory

>definition or explanation beyond the one I've already given.

I was a bit baffled by ' use of " my world " versus " the world "

myself, and I have wondered where she got it from. I figured that since

she had mentioned being more of a classic autistic as a small child, she

might be distinguishing between the place her mind goes when she shuts off

her senses to explore her mental environment (her " world " ) as opposed to

the physical " world " environment that other people always live in. I'm

just guessing, though!

>Do you know of any way of explaining what it means? Or is it just a

>co-opted colloquial metaphor with little meaning on its own?

I'm not sure about , but I know that I use it as a literal because

a good part of my awareness growing up was dedicated to computer games and

books. There was even a computer game company back in the 80s/90s whose

slogan was literally " We Create Worlds. "

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy