Re: Digest Number 1155, re:amanda, clay, camille

[Guest guest]

>________________________________________________________________________

>

>Message: 8

> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:51:44 -0000

>

>Subject: Re: Digest Number 1154

>

>

>

> > I am not sure if it was you who asked me, " Why are you here? "

>

>It was her, but it wasn't You she was talking to.

>I don't know how you could be confused about that,

>as his name (acsnag) was the subject line of her

>post. He was also the troll that Kathleen mentioned.

>Those things weren't said to you or about you.

>

>Clay

>

>

> Must have read it in a hurry. Glad to hear it. Thanks.

Jerry

>

>

>

>________________________________________________________________________

>________________________________________________________________________

>

>Message: 13

> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:10:33 -0000

>

>Subject: Re: Digest Number 1154

>

>Camille: Exactly how is it that she can be a " well intentioned " but

>phoney, propaganda-spreading ,self-appointed heroine figure?

>

>Jerry: Ask her how she apparently does it.

>

>

>

>Jerry,

>

>I am not jealous of what you have. I am angry that you take the

>attitude that you somehow deserve it (more than others), that it was

>entirely earned (no luck involved).

I have never said it was entirely earned. So what if I had some

good luck too? We all get lucky sometimes and only a fool doesn't take

advantage of it.

>

>Yes, you worked for it, but as you said, the movie was luck. Your

>real life ability with words is _luck_ compared to, for instance,

>'s " luck " with the ability to speak. She has a more difficult

>time with speech. If you had been born with 's set of

>difficulties...you wouldn't have what you have...for one thing you

>might not have been married, ever.

I know plenty of couples who don't have my " way with words " , if

that is actually true

Truth is, I talked at a normal age but not normally. I used to be incredibly

nervous in public and overcame it by becoming a fitness fanatic in youth and

reading poetry aloud to myself. So whatever you think I have as verbal

talent was earned, too.

>

>If people resent you for having nice things, that's stupid. If they

>resent you for your fame, that's stupid, too.

Well, you certainly come across as feeling that way. I don't

appreciate your shallow threats about my possibly " twisting in the wind with

my movie. "

>

>As for what I could have had...I have been the full time caretaker and

>responsible individual for a child with physical problems you wouldn't

>trade your spleen problems for. This now adult child will never write

>a book or go on TV or promote a movie, or for that matter, trash

> Dawson.

That child, unlike most people who have lived, is alive. I hope

he/she doesn't waste his time hating anyone who has or earns what he does

not.

>

>I have sacraficed a thousand things in order to be available to my ASD

>child.

>

>You don't have kids,

WRONG. We have two stepkids and a grand-daughter. Both kids were on

the spectrum. did a wonderful job of raising them, alone. I forgot to

mention that we want to help them buy homes and go to more college.

You weren't dumped into a cult by your parents, Camille.

was.

You weren't forced to marry someone, at age fifteen. was.

You weren't deserted in Italy, wandering the streets, practically

nonverbal, with your three-month old son. was.

You weren't adducted, tortured, watched as the same was done to

your kids, by a Vietnam War Veteran neighbor who got away scot-free because

he is a cousin of a prominent evangelist.

was.

Camille, if you want to imagine that my life and my wife's life

is absolutely stress-free and we have done nothing to earn what we have

today, I can' t change your mind.

But people who know us know the truth.

that gives you lots more freedom to run around

>making money. You certainly don't have a severely handicapped child.

No, I have two remarkable stepsons who are independent now

despite the challenges they were born with.

>

> > >

> > >Even jypsy and I, we don't just sit at home and do flimsy " internet

> > >advocacy " , which in fact is not flimsy.

> >

> > Not flimsy but relatively risk-free.

>

>

>When I put stuff up on my pages about Lovaas who is a professor at

>UCLA in the psychology dept. and I am a student at UCD in the

>psychology dept., given the way connections flow in this world,

>wouldn't you say that my writing about Lovaas is risk-filled, rather

>than relatively risk-free?

Oh, you are going to educate me on Loovas? I worked on the same

campus as him for over six years. I was diagnosed by the same person who

diagnosed all of his early subjects. That was why I know a lot of stuff that

can't be shared because the people who told me are afraid of a lawsuit from

Loovas or his family, if he dies soon. He is seventy seven.

Compared to what could be said, I would bet that anything you

have said is old news.

>

>I also, email the researchers at the UCD MIND institute when a topic

>comes up. Think they are likely to recruit me if and when I go

>looking for a position as a Research assistant? hah! They'd be

>pretty exceptional people if they did, hoping for that.

You really don't want to work for the MIND institute. Insiders

tell me that it is really in a state of disarray; so bad that one of its

original boosters, Rick Rollens, pulled his kid out of its activities. But

you are right: Loovas has a lot of former students who would not like what

you wrote, no matter how mild it is by comparison to the truth. Good for

you.

>

>I can't say that you have sold out, I don't know what kind of choices

>you have made. I'd love to see you do more with writing letters to

>editors in response to all the whining by parents (Give my child

>Lovaas style 40 hour-a-week ABA or he's dead to me) and then copy

>those letters to a bunch of parent's.

I have done enough of that. It is not the only issue out there

and it is very frustrating to see the parents who originally allowed Lovaas

to shock their kids refuse to sue and generally sweep it under the rug. I

try to pick issues where I can count on some reasonable support. I don't

like to fight losing battles.

>

>It will be interesting to see if you did any advocacy in your

>interview with 60 minutes. I imagine that you did some.

This was a two-minute update. It was not about advocacy. That

show has an agenda and when they shoot five hours, they will edit out

anything I say that isn't wanted.

>

>I would never have written anything at all to you if you hadn't gone

>off on Clay about supporting .

>

>For one thing it's immature to tell him, " You don't speak for me! "

Not at all. He doesn't. If wants to speak out, fine. But

i am not comfortable with anyone thinking that she represents me.

>

>No kidding. Clay's kind of statement isn't a binding legal contract

>that means everyone who reads on this list is behind .

>

No. But it was presumptous. You need to get a grip on your

anger or just join the ANI

speaker bureau. Maybe you can open up for Dawn Prince- if she does a

tour.

>Then you start attacking , out of some kind of nasty mood,

>rather than based on facts.

I made a valid criticism, which everyone else on this list

treated civilly. You lost it. But one in a list is not bad.

>

>Oh, about Lenny, I email him regularly, too. Has he ever published a

>critical letter to the editor of yours in the SAR?

Have no idea. What is the SAR? I know he printed all of my

pro- comments on his " ASA-Alive " list.

>

>The fact that I am not a white male is not a lame excuse. I am a

>Christian, too, and thank God for what I have.

I would love to eliminate all religions.

>

>You have certain advantages in being a white male. You gonna tell me

>that you would be where you are today if you had been born "

>Alvarado " or " Alphonse " , a black man? Or even if you had been

>born, " Sylvia Whitney " , a white woman.

>

>Give me a break.

Get a new script. Men and women have different sets of

advantages. Besides, I have gone to jail to fight for civil and human

rights. Have you?

>

>

>Exactly who is going to respond to the charisma of Liane Holliday

>Willey, a crowd of beaten down, overstressed, underpaid autistics?

>They might respond to anyone, charismatic or not, based on the facts,

>but as a group, we aren't going to " follow " anyone, en masse. Partly

>because at any given time a whole bunch of us are in need of solitude

>and stim time.

Point? You said that we can't be charismatic. I just gave you

three counter-examples and I am sure there are more.

>

>If you think I was actually expecting you to take my suggestion of

>what to wear, you are wrong. I was trying to make a point. You

>aren't ready to stick your neck out that far...in my opinion. You

>want to come across as more normal than someone who would wear

> " Lovaas.... " on a t-shirt.

>

I stick my neck out at the right time for the right reason.

Wearing something like that at a movie premiere is just not smart advocacy.

I would like to wear a CANT (Cure All NTs) T-shirt at the right time,

perhaps on a talk show. s far as how far I stick my neck out, you have no

clue. You are so eager to trash me that you miss the basic facts, like

whether I have anyone else in my life to worry about other than my wife or

pets.

>If you want only nice talk from me then don't come on in attack mode

>to Clay if he says something not about you or to , who has

>never bad mouthed you.

I just want the same amount of consideration that everyone else on

this list gave. I am not sure if you are even capable of nice talk even if I

wanted to read it.

>Why should you be worried about taking care of your " family " , if your

>wife is as capable as you are then she can take care of herself.

has not worked in years. She is far more talented than I am

but not able to make money off it anymore. She has always had big-time

problems in work-related human relations, even in comparison to me

For reasons you would be too insensitive to accept, she is burned out

on even trying art or music again. She was a hairdresser and the pressure of

working in " chop-shops " like SUPERCUTS, got to her.

If we were divorced, would qualify for SSI. She meets all of the tests

but because we are married, she doesn't qualify. Once again, in your

blind, hateful mode, you make stupid assumptions.

>

>Oh, if she's not as capable of taking care of herself as you are

>because she is a woman, then you made my point.

Not even worthy of response.

>

>I don't have a man to look after me, one who will live for one more

>year or one who will live for 8 more years.

Not hard to imagine why.

No one. My ASD child

>will be at the mercy of this horrible world with no one to look after

>her the way I do, if I get hit by a truck tomorrow. At that point I

>hope my God steps in to help.

My wife was in the same boat as you for a long time. She coped

with it.

That, Camille, is your basic problem. You need to stop moping and

cope instead.

>

>

>Honestly, I hope you make a million dollars in the next year. I wish

>you'd find a million dollars tomorrow and not have to work so hard.

>I'm not jealous. Just don't trash us from your tower.

What tower? Just don't go off on me when you obviously ignore the

truth about me.

Let's move on, please.

Jerry Newport

************Irritate an Internutzi**************

Work, Succeed, Be Happy

[Guest guest]

> , you misinterpret what i say.

I might, but if I do, then the people *you* are misinterpreting are

probably misunderstanding you the same way. (You keep misinterpreting

them as saying you have no right to have what you have, and apparently

now are stooping to calling them names over it. They're most likely

not saying that at all, they're most likely responding to a similar

(mis?)perception of your words to the one I have.)

> ************Irritate an Internutzi**************

> Work, Succeed, Be Happy

That's just incredibly nasty.

[Guest guest]

> > ************Irritate an Internutzi**************

> > Work, Succeed, Be Happy

>

> That's just incredibly nasty.

Yes, but he isn't criticizing a parent who thinks her kids' condition is

worse then death, nor criticizing a newspaper which violates ethical

standards, nor criticizing the portrayal of autistics as nothing but a

burden. So it's okay. Apparently.

--

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

> Well, you certainly come across as feeling that way. I don't

> appreciate your shallow threats about my possibly " twisting in the

> wind with my movie. "

How exactly is that a threat?

> WRONG. We have two stepkids and a grand-daughter. Both kids were on

> the spectrum. did a wonderful job of raising them, alone. I

> forgot to mention that we want to help them buy homes and go to more

> college.

I have read in your writings that you do not have children. I do not

know if this is where Camille got her information, but " I don't have

kids, " or something to that effect, was in at least one article you

wrote. You can't have it both ways; either you do or you do not.

Certainly, in the context in which Camille was speaking, which is in

raising an ASD child from birth, you do not have kids.

> You weren't dumped into a cult by your parents, Camille.

> was.

And you, Jerry, were not. I do not believe Camille was talking to .

> You weren't forced to marry someone, at age fifteen. was.

....

> You weren't deserted in Italy, wandering the streets, practically

> nonverbal, with your three-month old son. was.

....

> You weren't adducted, tortured, watched as the same was done to your

> kids, by a Vietnam War Veteran neighbor who got away scot-free

> because he is a cousin of a prominent evangelist. was.

That might really be relevant if Camille was talking to/about .

Since she is not, it is a total non-sequitir.

> > When I put stuff up on my pages about Lovaas who is a professor at

> > UCLA in the psychology dept. and I am a student at UCD in the

> > psychology dept., given the way connections flow in this world,

> > wouldn't you say that my writing about Lovaas is risk-filled,

> > rather than relatively risk-free?

>

> Oh, you are going to educate me on Loovas?

No. (But she does spell his name correctly.) She is telling you that

she has criticized him. Reread the paragraph cited above; it is pretty

clear that her intent was to tell you about the risks she is taking.

> Compared to what could be said, I would bet that anything you have

> said is old news.

Why do you have this need to insult her for criticizing a man that

desperately needs criticizing? Sheesh, is your ego so large that you

cannot handle anyone criticizing the same people that you do? I would

be glad that she is on the same side-- but then, I would be thinking

about the cause of autistic equality, not about who gets the credit for

being the biggest advocate. Good for you, Camille!

> But you are right: Loovas has a lot of former students

> who would not like what you wrote, no matter how mild it is by

> comparison to the truth. Good for you.

A compliment, but one muted by the " no matter how mild " qualifier

(implying, once again, that you know better).

> I have done enough of that. It is not the only issue out there and it

> is very frustrating to see the parents who originally allowed Lovaas

> to shock their kids refuse to sue and generally sweep it under the

> rug. I try to pick issues where I can count on some reasonable

> support. I don't like to fight losing battles.

Black rights was once a losing battle. Women's suffrage was too. I bet

the people involved in activism in those causes did not like " fighting a

losing battle, " but they did, and because of that, they won their

so-called " losing " battles. We all owe a debt of gratitude towards

those who fought losing battles on our behalf, because that is how

progress is made.

> > No kidding. Clay's kind of statement isn't a binding legal

> > contract that means everyone who reads on this list is behind

> > .

> >

> No. But it was presumptous.

It was probably high-90-percentile accurate on this list.

> You need to get a grip on your anger or

> just join the ANI speaker bureau. Maybe you can open up for Dawn

> Prince- if she does a tour.

The only one I see dishing out the insults and in need of anger control

is not Camille. The insults flow forth from your keyboard like water

over a waterfall.

> I made a valid criticism, which everyone else on this list treated

> civilly. You lost it. But one in a list is not bad.

I have not seen where she lost it.

> > The fact that I am not a white male is not a lame excuse. I am a

> > Christian, too, and thank God for what I have.

>

> I would love to eliminate all religions.

Which has nothing to do with anything, except perhaps to further provoke

Camille. This is inappropriate.

> I stick my neck out at the right time for the right reason. Wearing

> something like that at a movie premiere is just not smart advocacy. I

> would like to wear a CANT (Cure All NTs) T-shirt at the right time,

> perhaps on a talk show. s far as how far I stick my neck out, you

> have no clue. You are so eager to trash me that you miss the basic

> facts, like whether I have anyone else in my life to worry about

> other than my wife or pets.

I don't see her trashing you. I see her treating you with a great deal

more respect than you are treating her.

> I just want the same amount of consideration that everyone else on

> this list gave. I am not sure if you are even capable of nice talk

> even if I wanted to read it.

Yet another insult. This is against the charter of this group. I am

getting weary of this... not long ago, you laid into Jypsy, and a whole

list of other spectrumites... then me, when I dared to disagree with

you. You accused me of not being able to have true friendships, tried

to threaten to expose the " real " me rather than the internet fantasy,

and otherwise piled on with the typical bullshit. I don't know why you

feel so small that you must belittle and badmouth every person you can,

but you do. I told you you had a problem when you did it to me, and

apparently you still do. It is inappropriate and it must stop on this list.

> For reasons you would be too insensitive to accept,

Now I have seen it all. Camille being called insensitive by you. Seen

a mirror lately?

> If we were divorced, would qualify for SSI. She meets all of the

> tests but because we are married, she doesn't qualify. Once

> again, in your blind, hateful mode, you make stupid assumptions.

She is not the one that looks blind, hateful, or stupid.

> > I don't have a man to look after me, one who will live for one more

> > year or one who will live for 8 more years.

>

> Not hard to imagine why.

Another insult. Good thing we're not having a poll as to whether who

would be harder to live with, you or Camille.

> That, Camille, is your basic problem. You need to stop moping and

> cope instead.

She's not moping. She is a heck of a lot more positive than you are. A

startling percentage of your posts are denigrating one person or

another, often people on this list. I would have no problem telling

Camille the same if I thought it was true. I tell it as I see it, and I

know that not agreeing with you (like last time) is going to open me up

to a barrage of the usual insults reserved for anyone that has an

opinion different than yours.

> What tower? Just don't go off on me when you obviously ignore the

> truth about me.

She is not the only one that sees you as if you are preaching from an

ivory tower. There are a LOT of us out here.

If you want to discuss things, that is fine, but this constant

everyone-bashing has to stop.