Re: What is the 'PC way to refer to those on the spectrum?

[Guest guest]

> That is now. I was talking about my youth. What were you like

> as a seven year old?

The problem with this is that I know people like Jim Sinclair who

didn't speak until they were 12 who have what would probably be

mistaken for your definition of " Asperger's " if someone didn't know

their history. I could be mistaken for that today, too, in certain

situations (when I'm using my natural voice - giving a presentation

for instance). I know others who looked " fairly normal " as a kid who

require extensive in-home help and such today ( went quite a

while without a diagnosis IIRC - and used speech much more as a young

kid than she does now [which is pretty much not at all now]).

How many of their kids will have similar outcomes to me? I have piss

poor " self care " skills when it comes to eating and maintaining a

healthy living space, asking for help, or lots of other things that

many " low functioning " autistics don't have trouble with (yet many AS

people do have the same problems). Yet I also am working in what I

consider my dream job - the job I wanted since I was a little kid

(age 5). I've not yet an NT, much less an autistic, who is doing

*exactly* what they wanted to do from the first time they thought

about what they would want to do when they grew up - that's rare in

anyone.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the AS/Autism separation too

- it relies on what someone as a *KID* was like, not what they are

like NOW. You could take people with either diagnosis as a kid, not

allow a doctor to see their childhood history, and the doctor would

assume that they had basically the same condition if you picked the

right two people - even if their childhoods were VERY different.

That all said, if anyone assumed that as a kid I was more similar to

their kid than you are, I'd fear for the kid.

[Guest guest]

Jerry wrote:

> I just don't get the apparent " controversy. " If most of you don't

> see a difference between AS and autism, why worry about what some

> professional calls you? It doesn't change who you are at all,

> whether you are autistic, aspergers, peterson or whatever. You are

> you.

I guess that I could admit to seeing a difference at the extremes of

the spectrum, but that's like the bell curve, there's not too many at

the ends. Where most of us are on that curve, it's not very easy to

draw the line between them. There are Aspies who can't support them-

selves, and/or don't have Any friends, don't communicate well, or

talk pedantically, can't cook or keep house, etc., while there are

auties with Doctoral degrees or are working on them, speak very well,

even to audiences, dress meticulously, and otherwise break all the

rules about what auties are not supposed to be able to do.

I'm not sure how to say it, and maybe I can't prove it, but I think

that autism and Asperger's is " made out of the same stuff " , whatever

that is. Those that it affects, it affects in different ways, and

it's a toss-up whether a given Doctor will Dx someone as one or the

other. When other considerations are thrown in, such as, the Dr.

doesn't want to alarm the parents, or he wants to enable the patient

to receive services, then the whole idea of " definition " of the terms

goes out the window.

> As my first book says, " Your life is not a label "

> And that was not an ad.

I already have the book, but like so many other books I've bought

in the last couple years, I haven't gotten 'round to reading it.

I will, I promise!

Clay

[Guest guest]

Jerry wrote:

> My spectrum problems were almost entirely social but nowhere

> near as severe as what typical autistic kids have at that age.

> The grossest stuff I was known for was pica (nosepicking and

> scab-eating), poor grooming, horrible teeth and being a play-

> ground nerd. But this was in 1955.

Hey, even More things we have in common, except that I will also

admit to *eating* the boogers too. ;-)

Clay

[Guest guest]

> > What is included in " self-help skills " and " adaptive behavior " ?

> That's a good question. I would guess stuff like dressing, eating

> and grooming. Later on, stuff like driving a car? Of course, all of

> this could be done haphazardly. Especially driving And we are

> hardly known as clotheshorses either.

This was the categories/results on a test I was given of " adaptive

behavior " about six months ago:

" Per current administration, scored in the Deficient range in

all areas. Communication, Self-Care and Self-Direction were the

lowest areas wherein she scored a scale score of 1. As there is no 0

this is the lowest score possible. Her highest area is in Functional

Academics in which she obtained a scale score of 3. Scale Scores of 3

are in the Deficient range. She obtained a Scale Score of 2 in the

areas of Community Use, Home Living, Health and Safety, Leisure and

Social. "

I know that when the DSM talks about self-help skills and adaptive

behavior in Asperger's they specifically exclude social stuff

somewhere in there.

But it looks like communication, self-care, self-direction, functional

academics, community use, home living, health and safety, leisure, and

social. At least those are the ones measured by that test (which, by

way of explanation, measures the *practical* application of various

skills without assistance, and somehow misses my stronger points and

hits most of my weak points) and I think it's supposed to conform to

some kind of American federal thing or another.

In the DSM mental retardation category they talk about the categories

of Communication, Health, Leisure time, Safety, School, Self-care,

Social, Taking care of a home, and Work (which the person apparently

needs to have trouble in two of). Those *may* be the categories they

mean by " adaptive behavior " (which are also of course affected by

autism), and they are a fairly close match to the scale I was measured on.

[Guest guest]

> ( went quite a

> while without a diagnosis IIRC - and used speech much more as a

> young kid than she does now [which is pretty much not at all now]).

Diagnosed in early teens. Spoke a tiny bit, lost that, learned again

later (not quite sure when) to repeat words (not necessarily to use

them accurately), started gradually losing that again as a preteen.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> I think you're right, Gail, it IS " whinging " or " whinger " ,

> and it does mean " to whine " . Not sure if they say it with

> a hard or soft 'g'.

>

There is no such word as whinging or whinger. It is whine and whiner or

whining. There may be some place where it is pronounced as if there was

a g in there although I have never heard it pronounced that way. Even if

that were so it is never spelled that way.

Red

[Guest guest]

> There is no such word as whinging or whinger.

Really?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whinger

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whinger

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/w/w0119750.html

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> > I think you're right, Gail, it IS " whinging " or " whinger " ,

> > and it does mean " to whine " . Not sure if they say it with

> > a hard or soft 'g'.

> There is no such word as whinging or whinger. It is whine and

> whiner or whining. There may be some place where it is pronounced

> as if there was a g in there although I have never heard it

> pronounced that way. Even if that were so it is never spelled

> that way.

Hey Red,

Do you only sometimes get access to the computer, like for " good

behavior " or something? The reason I ask is that apparently, you

don't see all of the posts, but only some of them. If you had seen

a post previous to this one, you would have known that I was talk-

ing about a word used in Britain. (Notice the " they " in the above

paragraph.

Now you've gone and made a fool of yourself (again), by sounding

cocksure and arrogant, about something of which you do not know,

also about the lethal potential of neuroleptics. Just wondering

if you saw the response I made a week or so ago to a post of yours.

I'll reprint it for your convenience:

Red wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> > which is something that a smart-assed know-it-all aspie like

> > you could never admit. It's a common trait among many (usually

> > male) aspies, although it seems particularly pronounced in you.

> Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!

That all you got? Heh. I've never denied that I tend to be that

way myself, I've seen it in myself and others, but I " got over

myself " a long time ago.

Yes, through most of my life, I rarely encountered people that I

considered truly intelligent, except for a few college profs that

I had, but mostly that was because I was in a working class milieu,

and I was mostly correct, although wisdom can be found in entirely

uneducated people.

I was disabused of such notions, however, as soon as I got on the

internet, and learned there were Many people who knew far more than

I, even though they were Dx'd as straight autistic, and not Aspie.

They had known about it longer, had listened and learned from others,

just as You should do, instead of spouting off and trying to sound

like the world's foremost expert on every freakin' thing.

Again, I quote from " Desiderata " , " If you compare yourself with

others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be

greater and lesser persons than yourself. "

Take it to heart, Red, you could improve your personal life, as

well as your participation here. Don't be so " full of yourself " .

Clay

http://www.mogulmarketing.com/clay/chipsy.htm

[Guest guest]

One simple answer:

A living, thinking, feeling human being !

I have rediagnosed myself as part of the human spectrum! We are prone to

emotions, special interests, inexplicable customs. And yes sometimes we

get depressed, sometimes we feel happy. We are all normal, in the sense

that we differ from chimpanzees or orang-utans, but abnormal in the

sense that we also differ from each other.

Neil

htpp://www.outsider-insight.org.uk

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> Do you only sometimes get access to the computer, like for " good

> behavior " or something? The reason I ask is that apparently, you

> don't see all of the posts, but only some of them. If you had seen

> a post previous to this one, you would have known that I was talk-

> ing about a word used in Britain. (Notice the " they " in the above

> paragraph.

Sorry I was not aware that you were speaking about a f0reign language.

> also about the lethal potential of neuroleptics. Just wondering

Well I know nothing about neuroleptics. It is simply a well known fact

that until something has been proven to be the specific result we can

not know for certain. Had she stated that neuroleptics can kill people

there would have been no challenge from me. One simply can not make the

statement that I know it can kill *ME* until it has at least once killed

me. Knowing that she was still here to make the statement I know that

she can not definitively state that it can kill her.

Red

[Guest guest]

> One simply can not [sic] make the statement that I know it can kill

> *ME* until it has at least once killed me.

This statement is so fantastically illogical that I'm going to go out

on a limb here and say that it's not even possible for you to

actually believe it. You do realize, don't you, that if you follow

this line of reasoning to its conclusion, it means that no human

being can categorically state that *anything* would be certainly

fatal to them -- even standing at ground zero of the explosion of a

thermonuclear warhead?

It's perfectly possible to know that something is capable of killing

you without first having to be killed by it. Nuclear explosions,

poisons, microbes, firearms... the list goes on and on. This is

because we know that such things have killed other people in the

past, and unless there is something distinct and particular about

Doe's physiology that makes him immune to shotgun blasts or

nuclear explosions (unlikely, to say the least), then Doe is

similarly susceptible to death from the same causes that have killed

other people in the past.

Jeez...

--PSK

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> > Do you only sometimes get access to the computer, like for " good

> > behavior " or something? The reason I ask is that apparently, you

> > don't see all of the posts, but only some of them. If you had seen

> > a post previous to this one, you would have known that I was talk-

> > ing about a word used in Britain. (Notice the " they " in the above

> > paragraph.)

> Sorry I was not aware that you were speaking about a f0reign

> language.

Foreign language? I'm talking about Britain here, England, the

UK? They speak English there, though some of the words are a

bit different, which was clearly stated in my first post about

" whingers " . And how about answering the question above about

computer access? Are you actually locked up somewhere?

> > also about the lethal potential of neuroleptics.

> Well I know nothing about neuroleptics.

And a whole raft of other things too, though that doesn't stop

you from making condescending, yet cockamamie remarks about any-

thing and everything, because you are Mr. Know-It-All. And then,

when I ask you questions, you have no answers, you just avoid them.

> It is simply a well known fact that until something has been

> proven to be the specific result we can not know for certain.

> Had she stated that neuroleptics can kill people there would

> have been no challenge from me. One simply can not make the

> statement that I know it can kill *ME* until it has at least

> once killed me. Knowing that she was still here to make the

> statement I know that she can not definitively state that it

> can kill her.

From what she said, (and you might have missed it), it *almost*

killed her, apparently causing her throat to swell, stopping her

breathing. They may have had to insert a tube to allow her to

breathe, or inject some other substance. So yes, she is quite

confident that such neuroleptics could indeed cause her death.

" It is simply a well known fact, " YADA YADA, boy, you can shove

that " simply " up your ass. Never say it again. Why? Because it

makes you sound as if you are talking down your nose at people,

and it is NOT appreciated, by anyone. Not in real life, and not

here. That's the best advice you're going to get for a long time.

I want you to know that we do understand, and accept you as a

fellow aspie. You're exhibiting a trait that we all know and

recognize, but it isn't something you're necessarily stuck with.

You can grow and mature, and realize that other people know things

too, and you might in fact learn something from them.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Not totally true... The " professionals " wanted to stick me in residential

school. My parents refused and I think part of that was based on what the

psych nurses in my family told them. I found out later from another girl

that actually did go to that school what they did. They did routinely

labotomize those that got in fights and stuff. They also sterilized them.

Considering how I'd get when overloaded or provoked as a child I probably

would of ended up labotomized and they'd of just sterilized me for the hell

of it no matter what. My parents had to fight apprently fairly hard to keep

me out of the system.

- Sue

>

>

> At which point they might draw a 3rd category of autistic, " HFA "

> which consists of those people no one would ever consider doing

> anything bad to because they are very different from the LFAs they

> are doing horrible things to...

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Well I know nothing about neuroleptics. It is simply a well known fact

> that until something has been proven to be the specific result we can

> not know for certain. Had she stated that neuroleptics can kill people

> there would have been no challenge from me. One simply can not make

> the statement that I know it can kill *ME* until it has at least once

> killed me. Knowing that she was still here to make the statement I

> know that she can not definitively state that it can kill her.

It's a *very* well-known fact that when your throat is closed, you

can't breathe. And that when one has this reaction to a drug, it is

listed in one's records as a drug that can be fatal to one, so the

drug will not be administered.

Of course we could always test this by injecting something that closes

*your* throat, make you wait awhile before giving something to

counteract the reaction, and see if you start thinking " Gee, that

stuff can kill me " or not.

[Guest guest]

> > Well I know nothing about neuroleptics.

> And a whole raft of other things too, though that doesn't stop

> you from making condescending, yet cockamamie remarks about any-

> thing and everything, because you are Mr. Know-It-All. And then,

> when I ask you questions, you have no answers, you just avoid them.

Actually, in my case, he's been attempting for quite some time to deny

that I have any actual knowledge of the inside of institutions unless

I have a doctor's note backing up my statements, or somesuch. This is

just the latest.

[Guest guest]

> Not totally true... The " professionals " wanted to stick me in

> residential

> school. My parents refused and I think part of that was based on

> what the

> psych nurses in my family told them. I found out later from

> another girl

> that actually did go to that school what they did. They did routinely

> labotomize those that got in fights and stuff. They also

> sterilized them.

> Considering how I'd get when overloaded or provoked as a child I

> probably

> would of ended up labotomized and they'd of just sterilized me for

> the hell

> of it no matter what. My parents had to fight apprently fairly

> hard to keep

> me out of the system.

I think you missed my point. Clearly anyone on the spectrum is at

risk for this.

My point was...let's say you speak out about institutionalizing

autistic children because people like you shouldn't be

institutionalized. You would be told, " People like you shouldn't be,

because you are able to communicate and blah blah blah. But REAL

autistics, these LFAs or whatever we call them today are very

different from you so you know nothing about them and we do, blah,

blah, blah. "

[Guest guest]

>

> > > Well I know nothing about neuroleptics.

>

> > And a whole raft of other things too, though that doesn't stop

> > you from making condescending, yet cockamamie remarks about any-

> > thing and everything, because you are Mr. Know-It-All. And then,

> > when I ask you questions, you have no answers, you just avoid

them.

>

> Actually, in my case, he's been attempting for quite some time to

deny

> that I have any actual knowledge of the inside of institutions

unless

> I have a doctor's note backing up my statements, or somesuch.

This is

> just the latest.

>

>

>

Good lord, Red, you make me look like Amy Vanderbilt.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

>>Actually, in my case, he's been attempting for quite some time to

> deny

>>that I have any actual knowledge of the inside of institutions

> unless

>>I have a doctor's note backing up my statements, or somesuch.

> This is just the latest.

>>

> Good lord, Red, you make me look like Amy Vanderbilt.

>

Well you might better suggest that 's claim does that.

I have never suggested or insinuated such things as she is claiming

above. Hell I've never in my life asked anyone for a doctor's note.

Red