Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:46:00 -0600 (MDT) > >Subject: RE: Digest Number 1146, response to Clay.... > > > > > You wrote in response to , " The rest of us are all > > behind you. " Speak for yourself and not for me, please. I do feel >general > > agreeement with much of what writes but not the way she writes >it. > > One can make a point without being needlessly confrontational. > >How? How should she respond to people who think autism is worse for >cancer, see family issues as the major issue, want to put their kids >through abusive treatment (at great cost - think of how many people >*really* could be helped if the money was spent on worthwhile treatments), >who say that autistics can't feel emotion or think, who say that the only >two choices are ABA or institutions, etc? > >Do you have examples of people who have addressed these issues rather then >avoided them, and who you think did it in a more considerate way? I am learning to do that myself. I have been publicly outspoken for years, risking far more than anyone who criticizes me here. But I am certainly not without sin in the area where I criticized . > >Sometimes there isn't a nice way to say " You know, you are greatly hurting >and insulting me and others like me. " True but I think that I and can both improve. > >-- > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:31:38 -0000 > >Subject: Re: Digest Number 1146, response to Clay.... > >*I* certainly don't think everyone supports my work. Some people >have actually supported my work by their actions. I wouldn't make >any guesses about those like Mr Newport who haven't. , that is a very uninformed and slanderous opinion of what I have done for our community. Just because I don't spend as much time as you and others, rocking the boat on the internet, doesn't mean that I haven't done anything. >However, *I* don't think what I'm doing is good. It is just all I >can do. > > You can spare me the phony humility. I have read enough of your online propoganda to know that you are very impressed with the heroine role you have assumed on the Internet. I happen to think that you are well intentioned but often self destructive in the way you advocate. I say that as one who has made similar mistakes too many times to mention. Despite that, I have even defended you on other forums, like Lenny Schafer's list, when he called you a " crank. " I did a little homework and took him to task for that. Jerry Newport > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 5 > _ > >Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:45:42 -0000 > >Subject: Re: Digest Number 1146, response to Clay.... > >Hi Jerry, > >I think that you have been needlessly confrontational in the past in >some of your comments. > >But autistics tend to have problems with social niceties. > >don't we? True on both counts. > >I am behind , and, in fact, don't find her actions >confrontational at all. She is far more polite than I am and was not > " behind " my Lovaas of borg rhetoric, but it was rude. (Maybe she's right) > >She's trying to educate people who don't want to be educated. > >They react as if she is confrontational. > >If someone said, nicely, to you, that Mozart and the Whale is a bad >idea, it will do much harm to people with AS, and only exploits us. I would nicely ask that person on what basis he makes such a claim. But I and my wife have said even more thant that to Hollywood, while battling to change a rotten orginal script into a much better one. > >If they said it so that lots of people can hear it... I don't doubt that some people will say such. I accept that as the price of being a public figure. I really don't care about ignorant comments from people who don't walk in my shoes and don't know the facts. I don't expect everyone to like me. > >you might call that confrontational...but really it's just a point of >view that is in opposition to yours. > >Maybe you don't want to rock the boat too much for your own reasons. I rock the boat a lot more than any other public autie/aspie and have a lot more to lose when I do. It is very easy to speak your mind when you don't have a pot to piss in. I have something to lose, materially, if some professional or parent sues me. Most internet gadflys don't risk what I risk, every time I do speak my mind. I have spoken my mind in many places where it cost me. If you were in the room full of 800 people when I said that " Loovas belongs in the Hall of Shame, not the Hall of Fame " . for example, you might imagine that this is not what one says to any audience if he wants to sell books, get invited back etc. I don't see any other public autie, not one, who is nearly as outspoken as I am. My wife and I didn't write a book on sexuality in order to gain popularity. There is no way you can win when you write about subjects like that. We did it because somebody needed to do it. You don't see me on a lot of Autism/Asperger's organization boards of directors for one reason: I am not the kind of politically correct autie/aspie doormat who gets invited to be on them. Jerry Newport > >Message: 19 > Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:16:06 -0000 > >Subject: Re: Digest Number 1146, response to Clay.... > >Gerald Newport wrote: > > > Clay, > > You wrote in response to , " The rest of us are all > > behind you. " Speak for yourself and not for me, please. > >Sorry, Jerry, but I had no way of knowing whether you were >currently reading the List or not. Why? I have responded enough for one to assume that I still read. I just don't respond every day. Does one have to live on this list in order to be recognized? I meant it in a general >way, anyway. And I do recall that there were some others >who generally approved of what they had heard of the " Son-Rise " >Program, but they may have been persuaded out of it when some >others pointed out their false claims and fraudulent advertising. I am not sure of the relevance of that. > > > I do feel general agreement with much of what writes > > but not the way she writes it. One can make a point without > > being needlessly confrontational. > >That's true, but perhaps you or I have not had the same >experiences that has had, and don't have the same >motivation to correct people's misconceptions. When I read >that first article and letter from the Toronto Star, I felt >like indulging in a bit of aggressive behavior myself, and >I'm sure that would not have condoned that. > >As for being " needlessly confrontational " , sometimes you have >to whack someone over the head just to get their attention. But most of the time, when you feel that way, you are over-reacting. I know this only too well. Thanks for your diplomatic response, Jerry newportnewport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 That's really boring. I only wrote what I wrote. I don't expect everyone, or even anyone to support my work. Why should they? That doesn't mean they aren't doing wonderful work of their own, as of course you are. And I'm very tired of being told who I am and what I think and that I'm a liar and a fraud. Take a number, Mr Newport. I think you're marvellous. I have not much good to say about my own work, which largely has been futile. But so long as whatever I say is fake to you, then what's the point in saying it? (never did understand the " I'm better than you are " argument. Of course you are. Now can I go back to work?) > > > > > Clay, > > > You wrote in response to , " The rest of us are all > > > behind you. " Speak for yourself and not for me, please. > > > >Sorry, Jerry, but I had no way of knowing whether you were > >currently reading the List or not. > > Why? I have responded enough for one to assume that I still read. I > just don't respond every day. Does one have to live on this list in order to > be recognized? > > I meant it in a general > >way, anyway. And I do recall that there were some others > >who generally approved of what they had heard of the " Son-Rise " > >Program, but they may have been persuaded out of it when some > >others pointed out their false claims and fraudulent advertising. > > I am not sure of the relevance of that. > > > > > I do feel general agreement with much of what writes > > > but not the way she writes it. One can make a point without > > > being needlessly confrontational. > > > >That's true, but perhaps you or I have not had the same > >experiences that has had, and don't have the same > >motivation to correct people's misconceptions. When I read > >that first article and letter from the Toronto Star, I felt > >like indulging in a bit of aggressive behavior myself, and > >I'm sure that would not have condoned that. > > > >As for being " needlessly confrontational " , sometimes you have > >to whack someone over the head just to get their attention. > > But most of the time, when you feel that way, you are > over-reacting. I know this only too well. > > Thanks for your diplomatic > response, > > Jerry > > > > > > > newportnewport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 This is in response to Jerry's message. One, you can't read minds. You have no clue what is thinking or feeling, you don't know if that's humility at all, let alone phony humility. But I thought you knew you couldn't read minds. I don't know why you act like you know the thoughts and feelings of someone you barely know. As a corrolary to " you can't read minds, " you have no idea what other people risk or how much they speak out. Some people risk their homes, their lives, and their freedom. (This is not melodramatic exaggeration; I've seen it happen to people for speaking out, including autistic people, including on the Internet.) Some people speak out on the net or in offline areas you don't have access to. You just don't know any more than I do what people are risking/doing unless they tell you. And you can meet some pretty impressive advocates if you look in the right places (at least I have). But more importantly, advocacy isn't a contest. (Which I also thought you knew, but you're acting like it is.) You're not the only one, nobody is. Not everyone can handle going to conferences all the time and making public statements about Lovaas or whatever (and I know several people, including me, who would if we could). How much you have to lose depends in part on how much you have to begin with, and a lot of autistics don't really have a lot, that doesn't make them worse advocates. It takes the effort of people working together doing *different* things, not the effort of people all deciding there is One True Way to do advocacy and that people who don't risk enough or don't do things in certain settings or whatever aren't Real Advocates. One thing I agree on in your message is that autism groups (and disability groups in general) tend to appoint people who are either the sort of person who already agrees with the agenda, the sort of person who can be molded into agreeing with the agenda, or the sort of person who thinks they can create change from " inside the system " but just ends up getting absorbed into " the system " . I know a very nice guy around here who is the " consumer advocate " at the Regional Center, and he fully admits that part of the reason he's there is he *is* nice, *too* nice, and has trouble standing up for himself. I also agree that if you're into this kind of thing it's bad to want everyone to like you. If you want everyone to like you, then you're going to end up making some pretty ugly compromises, and hurting a lot of people. I have seen it happen to autistic people who get involved in " advocacy " but still want everyone to like them. That's where people start getting what you call " politically correct " and I call " spineless " , although I've occasionally (rarely) seen the odd person manage to do a lot " undercover " while just *looking* PC/spineless. As I've said before, I think there are too few advocates out there and we need to stick together in some ways, but for cripes sake stop acting like you're the only Real Advocate on the planet or like you're the only one who puts a lot on the line to do what you do. (And if you don't mean to, at least know that's how you came across in that post, and also as if you thought you were a mindreader.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 > I am learning to do that myself. I have been publicly outspoken > for years, risking far more than anyone who criticizes me here. Wait, how do you know you risk more? Prove it. > True but I think that I and can both improve. No doubt, but you haven't told her how she could specifically approach that situation, or pointed to people who are doing it right. Nothing on earth is perfect - that's my religion of course, but I do think it applies. That doesn't mean nothing can be good, even if everything *could* be better. > >*I* certainly don't think everyone supports my work. Some people > >have actually supported my work by their actions. I wouldn't make > >any guesses about those like Mr Newport who haven't. > > , that is a very uninformed and slanderous opinion of > what I have done for our community. Just because I don't spend as much time > as you and others, rocking the boat on the internet, doesn't mean that I > haven't done anything. Jerry, you misread her. All she is saying is that she isn't assuming you or anyone else would like her opinions or way of stating it. She is saying you haven't acted in a significant way that she can see that indicates your support. Do you really support her letters to the paper after all? As for " rocking the boat on the internet " , how many supreme court cases have you participated in? Her advocacy is not limited to the internet. But the internet *is* a valid medium for organizing autistic advocates, especially since many of us have communication problems in most forums. > >However, *I* don't think what I'm doing is good. It is just all I > >can do. > > > > > > You can spare me the phony humility. I have read enough of > your online propoganda to know that you are very impressed with the heroine > role you have assumed on the Internet. I happen to think that you are well > intentioned but often self destructive in the way you advocate. Actually, having met (have you?), I can say without any doubt that she truly feels that way about her work. I think it is unfortunate - I think her work is much better then she gives herself credit for, and that she is good at it. But she has a low opinion of it and really is her harshest critic. It's not false humility, it's the way she feels. I think she truly does wish someone would do the stuff she is doing, but do it in a way which is much more effective then her way. If you do that work, I'm sure she'll give you the credit. > I rock the boat a lot more than any other public autie/aspie > and have a lot more to lose when I do. It is very easy to speak your mind > when you don't have a pot to piss in. I have something to lose, materially, > if some professional or parent sues me. Most internet gadflys don't risk > what I risk, every time I do speak my mind. This is something that sounds very arrogant. Have you really done more advocacy then *ANY* other autistic? Are you sure of it? Do you know what advocacy is taking place in, say, Finland? You may not be the biggest figure there. I agree internet advocacy in itself is not sufficient. But it is a valid form of advocacy. I can talk about parents who have seen things I wrote on the internet and changed opinions from those which would harm their children to opinions which help and support their children. It's not as spectacular as speaking in front of 500 people (nor as profitable) but it is valid advocacy. And personally if someone is doing good work, I don't say " you aren't doing as much good work as I am...so your work is pretty lousy. " What do you risk? Your material possessions. Your reputation? Honestly, that's not much of a risk compared to risks I've seen others make. It's a real risk and I commend anyone who risks material possessions and reputation for others' sake. But there are even greater risks some face - the loss of their ability to sustain themselves (not just financially - if you have no money, people will give you food; But if you can't eat without someone's help and you lose that, it is an entirely different issue). > I have spoken my mind in many places where it cost me. If you were in > the room full of 800 people when I said that " Loovas belongs in the Hall of > Shame, not the Hall of Fame " . for example, you might imagine that this is > not what one says to any audience if he wants to sell books, get invited > back etc. I don't see any other public autie, not one, who is nearly as > outspoken as I am. I do see other autistics who do speak out against injustices. And they say things which upset people just as much and even more then that. is one of them - her work has actually threatened to cause the parent's groups in Canada to lose significant sums of money they seek - we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars that would be used to further an anti-autistic philosophy and the abuse of autistic children. That's pretty significant advocacy. Others here in this group have spoken out and risked much. I know several that don't post here who not only are public and speak out, but do so in every bit as dramatic of a way as you do. And many of these people have faced many of the consequences you have - well, minus the speaking fees, movie deals, and books. > My wife and I didn't write a book on sexuality in order to gain > popularity. There is no way you can win when you write about subjects like > that. We did it because somebody needed to do it. Internet isn't advocacy but writing a book is? What is the difference in your mind? > You don't see me on a lot of Autism/Asperger's organization boards of > directors for one reason: I am not the kind of politically correct > autie/aspie doormat who gets invited to be on them. No doubt. But that doesn't mean you are the only one in that category either. I'm not trying to criticize you personally or your advocacy work. I'm going to listen to what you say in Wyoming and hope you change a few attitudes when you speak here. But I also think some of your criticisms of others, both as not doing as much advocacy (or " risking as much " ) and your understanding of others' work is misinformed in some ways. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 Gerald Newport wrote: Clay wrote: > > Sorry, Jerry, but I had no way of knowing whether > > you were currently reading the List or not. > Why? I have responded enough for one to assume that > I still read. I just don't respond every day. I can't assume that; there have been a few times when I or someone else replied or commented to you, but you didn't respond. From that, I just assumed you were busy with real life. No biggie, just explaining why my assumption didn't go the other way. > Does one have to live on this list in order to > be recognized? No, of course not. Someone might read every day, but only respond once in awhile; or they might read once in awhile, and respond once in awhile. The thing is, we can't tell the difference. It's cool that there's never any obligation to respond. > >I meant it in a general way, anyway. And I do recall that > >there were some others who generally approved of what they > >had heard of the " Son-Rise " Program, but they may have been > >persuaded out of it when some others pointed out their false > >claims and fraudulent advertising. > I am not sure of the relevance of that. First, I'm admiring how you said that. (Someone else might just declare, " That is irrelevant. " ) This gives me a chance to explain the relevance without feeling put-down. I *did* consider whether anyone here might disagree with my support of , and I remembered that there were one or two who said they thought the " Son-Rise " program sounded good. It *should* sound good, the father in charge of it was in advertising. > >As for being " needlessly confrontational " , sometimes you have > >to whack someone over the head just to get their attention. > But most of the time, when you feel that way, you are > over-reacting. I know this only too well. Yes, most of the time. But there are a few times when it just needs to be done. > Thanks for your diplomatic response, Always, Jerry. I feel like I owe a permanent debt to you, because your appearance on " 60 Minutes " opened my eyes to Asperger's. You could even say outrageous things and not hear a peep out of me. Clay 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.