Re: Autism sufferers 'better at problem solving'

[Guest guest]

Problem solving has long been one of my strong points. Figuring out mechanic or physical problems is fairly easy for me and I would have pursued a career in engineering if it weren't for the math difficulties I have. I can also solve other problems fairly easily too if I know something about the issue or get good advice from someone who does. What I find so annoying is that so often the people I need to carry out the solution refuse to do so in what I, or in some cases a glacier, would consider a reasonable period of time.

In a message dated 6/17/2009 10:25:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

While autism is a common neurodevelopmental disability characterized by profound differences in information processing and analysis, this study showed that autistics have efficient reasoning abilities that build on their perceptual strengths. Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!

[Guest guest]

You often have this " pull themselves up " attitude to poverty and welfare. here

I'm noticing your awareness of a limit to your own educational ability, and you

say you sensibly recognise this limit and don't override it - like Strict has

just been telling me everyone must override their limits and act like we don't

have any.

>

> Problem solving has long been one of my strong points. Figuring out

> mechanic or physical problems is fairly easy for me and I would have pursued a

> career in engineering if it weren't for the math difficulties I have.

[Guest guest]

Please cite where I state people don't have limits and that they can exceed

their limits While you're at it, please, if you can, cite where I've stated

I have no limits

> >

> > Problem solving has long been one of my strong points. Figuring out

> > mechanic or physical problems is fairly easy for me and I would have pursued

a

> > career in engineering if it weren't for the math difficulties I have.

>

[Guest guest]

" like Strict has just been telling me everyone must override their limits and

act like we don't have any. "

Well Maurice, what I've personally found is that it IS amazing what we can do if

we force ourselves. There have been lots of times I have transcended what I

thought were my limits to accomplish things that hardly seemed attainable.

Many times when people face extraordinary circumstances, they do the same.

I do believe there is a maximum limit that we can handle, however. The thing is,

I do not think we know what that maximum limit is. We might THINK we do, but

sometimes circumstances push us beyound our perceived limits.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> I do believe there is a maximum limit that we can handle, however. The thing

is, I do not think we know what that maximum limit is.

That's why my rule is, that any time I'm going to try to exceed a limit I keep

the intention private and don't tell anyone before doing it. Hence it can never

be an objective given to me by a policymaker and turn into a disempowering

humiliation or a pressure trap.

[Guest guest]

Ah, I see you're selectively selecting only the most recent post of mine to

selectively discriminate (yes, I know I'm being redundant, but it's good

redundancy, even if it is redundant, isn't it?) and say I've never posted

anything about limitations, but that's too limiting to limit it to that limited

selection that you've selectively selected in a redundant manner, as is this

sentence.

By " whine " from you, I'm referring to all your " wronged child author " diatribe

where you're attempting to convince anyone at all that doesn't turn down the

volume of your whine that you're some kind of child writing prodigy, robbed of

your success by an abusive school system and various other authorities. Well,

all we've got is your incessant whining about how, as a little kid, you state

you wrote some literary masterpiece that got taken away from you, and how you've

been so horribly wronged that you're unable to get something published. Why not

rewrite it, since it seems probable that after these decades, you've not still

got the original manuscript? Oh, yes, that'd be so convenient: " It won't be the

same thing the second time around! " and you know what? I can realistically

believe that: if you're remotely as good as you've presented yourself to be

(child prodigy) you not only haven't lost the ability to do it, but you've honed

it to a fine edge, cutting with every word, so there's absolutely no reason

(other than everyone ganging up on poor old you) why you couldn't rewrite it and

get it published based on its merits. Instead, you've used it as an example,

without any verifiable proof outside of all your incessant whining about how the

system and the whole cruel world has done you wrong, that you've been ruined by

the destructive educational system that robbed you of being able to succeed at

your pet project when you were but a mere boy, instead of a far larger and older

boy that hasn't grown past such a thing that presumably ruined your future and

has left you an unhappy present. Even worse than your own limitations, real or

imagined, is allowing outsiders to dictate to you that you have limitations that

you do not, in fact, have: and yet, that's what you want the world to believe,

that you've got this lack of limitations that you had available as a little boy,

and they were stolen from you, and now you can only play this one life-long sad

song. Well, go out, write a full length novel, get it published and sold to

something other than being a self-published vanity book, and you'll actually

have valid proof that you're more than hot air-powered whine, and I'll be able

to respect that: otherwise, you merely continue to sound like the air being let

out of a dejected balloon flying across the room.

> >

> > I do believe there is a maximum limit that we can handle, however. The thing

is, I do not think we know what that maximum limit is.

>

> That's why my rule is, that any time I'm going to try to exceed a limit I keep

the intention private and don't tell anyone before doing it. Hence it can never

be an objective given to me by a policymaker and turn into a disempowering

humiliation or a pressure trap.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Ah, I see you're selectively selecting only the most recent post of mine to

selectively discriminate

The present argument is the relevant one, and as there are quotes in the present

argument I made them.

>as a little kid, you state you wrote some literary masterpiece that got taken

away from you,

As a big kid, not a little kid, and it does not need to have been a masterpiece.

>and how you've been so horribly wronged that you're unable to get something

published.

That anti-school writing is not easily published on a big scale, is not because

of the writers' personal history at all, it's because there is control of the

range of ideas the media powers consider acceptable to allow the public to

think. Ideas about money reform or types of economy that remove the need seek

jobs competitively - not the need to work, just the need to seek jobs

competitively - don't get published either. Science that is to any degree

pro-paranormal and not Dawkinsian materialist fails the cenasorship process

called " peer review " and doesn't get published in scientific papers.

Now, as regards that I can'tg et anything published, I had this anti-school

article published online by the ish Autism Network in 2007

www.scottishautismnetwork.org.uk/FacultiesNotGifts.doc

and I have a contribution in the collection of aspie writngs on mental health

that Dean Worton and Luke Beardon are still planning to publish despite the

personal pain as well as disruption that was done to their collection books

project by the suicide of Genevieve Edmonds.

> Why not rewrite it, since it seems probable that after these decades, you've

not still got the original manuscript?

I won't submit to injustices to please your ego. (1) I will only rewrite it in

circumstances where I can force it to be acknowledged as a child's book and not

presented as just another adult's book, (2) I won't subject it what happens to a

normal adult's novel, that when you are not already an established name it is

near-automatically rejected. Thuis happens regardless fo whether an adult's

first offering is actually any good, e.g. even the first Harry Potter book was

rejected 6 times before the agent made a lucky stike. but because I couldn't

force everyone to interpret a rejection of the book in that way, to risk

subjecting it to that normal adult book's experience would harm my struggle on

the child author issue,

> you not only haven't lost the ability to do it, but you've honed it to a fine

edge, cutting with every word, so there's absolutely no reason (other than

everyone ganging up on poor old you) why you couldn't rewrite it and get it

published based on its merits.

I won't have an arrogant ego trip about its merits and allow that to override

the absolute issue that I should have been allowed to complete it then.

> all your incessant whining about how the system and the whole cruel world has

done you wrong,

Power can be misused. Since the history of slavery and torture and genocide

would all be endorsed by claiming that power can't be misused, we can conclude

with total certainty that it can be. Now, if power can be misused, there is a

moral objective to seek to curtail or prevent its misuse, to defend oneself and

others from said misuses. But how else do you speak out comprehensibly against

anything, than by describing the thing you are speaking out against? If you are

speaking out, do you describe it approvingly and acdeptingly? No, you desribe it

critically, majoring on the injustice. But this is what you incessantly just

call whining. if nobody did what you call whining, i.e. spoke out against

injustice in any way, there would be no democracy. What you call whining is what

democracy is for.

> that robbed you of being able to succeed at your pet project when you were but

a mere boy,

The greatest moral benefit of a child author success is to destroy the bigoted

concept of a " mere " boy, at all.

> grown past such a thing that presumably ruined your future and has left you an

unhappy present.

Growing past things is evil. Why? Because it's fatalist acceptance. For 3000

years religions and psychology have served the convenient interest of ruling

classes, by preaching without any verifiable proof, that there is some noble

merit to fatalistically accepting wrongs and hurts instead of standing up and

doing anything about them.

> Even worse than your own limitations, real or imagined, is allowing outsiders

to dictate to you that you have limitations that you do not, in fact, have:

Nowhere have I claimed to have a single limitation because someone else has told

me so. Everything I have ever said about my limitations has been from

experience.

>and yet, that's what you want the world to believe, that you've got this lack

of limitations that you had available as a little boy,

You have mangled your syntax here.

> and you'll actually have valid proof that you're more than hot air-powered

whine,

I have an automatic right not have a shred required of me that is not required

of the child authors who made it. Any other position is bowing to the injustice

to any other extent than zero.

For me to chase after your respect would be like the civil rights movement

chasing after the klan's respect. All that your hate rants jumping up and down

on an unjustice have made you, is a totally knowing wilful accessory to my

former abuse, deliberately fighting to keep me under discriminatory prejudice

for having had an unjust experience, that is the opposite of every aspie

society's purpose and makes you a destructive force backing bigotry against

aspie justice - and I must point out to the mods that every word of that is a

considered legal statement and not reckless emotion at all.

This is critical now, as a mod issue. It is bigotry against the cause of

speaking up for and advocating for aspies in any way at all ever, for any one of

us to want such concept as " whine " ever to validly exist at all. No group can

disagree with this statement, without thereby sabotaging the validity of

speaking up for aspies in any way against any important ill-treatment, e.g. even

psychiatric drugging. If anyone can ever ever be called " whining " for speaking

about an injustice, then aspies getting hassle to take psychiatric drugs, or

aspie parents with doctors taking bad decisions for their children, will no

longer speak out because they know the reality of their experience will just get

rubbished and called whining, by loudmouth bullies who are happier not to listen

to it - and where will they go then? - suicide? - then the entire purpose of us

having any solidarity over the web at all is wiped out. I'm talking about ways

that folks have benefitted practically and very seriously from their membership

here, among other places.

and How safe do the folks taking refuge here from abusive fights on other

boards, feel any longer, if someone here is allowed to repeatedly scream and

rant and bluster that a seriously impacting life injustice experience for

another member is a whine? The very nature of the question itself proves it a

duty of care towards all members' health and security of person to answer it in

my favour not in Strict's.

[Guest guest]

" I do believe there is a maximum limit that we can handle, however. The thing

is, I do not think we know what that maximum limit is. We might THINK we do, but

sometimes circumstances push us beyound our perceived limits. "

Interesting, if I think about the above in terms of socializing, I do know that

the more interaction I do the more likely I am to have a meltdown. Certain

situations and circumstances are more more likely to trigger a meltdown, those

being new/unfamiliar places and people and the more of such things is more

likely to cause me to meltdown.

Saying that I can sometimes put up with things for quite sometimes, I guess it

all depends on the situation and the circumstances.

>

> " like Strict has just been telling me everyone must override their limits and

act like we don't have any. "

>

> Well Maurice, what I've personally found is that it IS amazing what we can do

if we force ourselves. There have been lots of times I have transcended what I

thought were my limits to accomplish things that hardly seemed attainable.

>

> Many times when people face extraordinary circumstances, they do the same.

>

> I do believe there is a maximum limit that we can handle, however. The thing

is, I do not think we know what that maximum limit is. We might THINK we do, but

sometimes circumstances push us beyound our perceived limits.

>

>

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

Just thought I'd step in here:

Strict said:

"grown past such a thing that presumably ruined your future and has left you an unhappy present."

Maurice said:

"Growing past things is evil. Why? Because it's fatalist acceptance. For 3000 years religions and psychology have served the convenient interest of ruling classes, by preaching without any verifiable proof, that there is some noble merit to fatalistically accepting wrongs and hurts instead of standing up and doing anything about them."

My reply:

I think that depends on the religion. In Christianity, there is historical documentation outside the Bible that Christ existed and that he was crucified. At least one historical author notes that it was "claimed" that Christ rose from the dead. Place names written in the Bible still exist today, and the Biblical portion of the Dead Sea scrolls were nearly a word for word duplicate with the oldest known Hebrew Bible though the Hebrew Bible is NOT as old as the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves.

While the Bible says that we are to ask God to forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive others who tresspass against us, it is not for the purpose of allowing any person or group of people to subject another person or group of people. The reason for this prayer/edict is because, to Christians, the Christian God has ultimate say over disposition over all of us. Only God can look into our hearts and know the true circumstances of our sins, and thus only he can judge us. Thus it is better for us to forgive and forget than it is to judge and hold prejudices over people. That's the Christian view anyway.

Maurice said:

All that your hate rants jumping up and down on an unjustice have made you, is a totally knowing wilful accessory to my former abuse, deliberately fighting to keep me under discriminatory prejudice for having had an unjust experience, that is the opposite of every aspie society's purpose and makes you a destructive force backing bigotry againstaspie justice - and I must point out to the mods that every word of that is a considered legal statement and not reckless emotion at all.

says:

So noted. But I am not sure what legality that statement actually has. It is your opinion, and you have a right to have it. No one will take it away from you. Strict is offerring HIS opinion, and is not, as far as I can see, attempting to be an accessory to what you've suffered, nor does he consider himself such. But, I will let Strict speak for himself.

Maurice said:

This is critical now, as a mod issue. It is bigotry against the cause of speaking up for and advocating for aspies in any way at all ever, for any one of us to want such concept as "whine" ever to validly exist at all. No group can disagree with this statement, without thereby sabotaging the validity of speaking up for aspies in any way against any important ill-treatment, e.g. even psychiatric drugging. If anyone can ever ever be called "whining" for speaking about an injustice, then aspies getting hassle to take psychiatric drugs, oraspie parents with doctors taking bad decisions for their children, will no longer speak out because they know the reality of their experience will just get rubbished and called whining, by loudmouth bullies who are happier not to listen to it - and where will they go then? - suicide? - then the entire purpose of us having any solidarity over the web at all is wiped out. I'm talking about ways that folks have benefitted practically and very seriously from their membership here, among other places.

says:

I have, in my time, said that Aspies have whined and do whine about the circumstances which they do some degree have control over. I can tell you from having spoken with Aspies online or at conventions or what have you, that for SOME Aspies, the biggest obstacles to their own successes are their refusal to step outside the bounds of either self-imposed limitations, or those limitations which have truthfully been imposed upon them by society.

One needs to look at what Midnight In Chicago does, and what you have done and are doing with your own website. Aspies can advocate for themselves and for other Aspies, yet at the same time, if EVERY Aspie who was capable would advocate for themselves, those of us who consider ourselves to be advocates would not have such a burden placed on our heads. In addition to having to work hard for ourselves individually, we have to work extra hard for the group of Aspies and autistics as a whole, many of whom are not willing to work hard for themselves.

As for what I am going to about this little spat between you and Strict, the answer is to let it continue because:

1) Neither of you have trolled the forums, and what you are doing right now is not trolling, merely discussing, albiet with barbs thrown in now and then.

2) It presents two sides of a complex issue: Whether or not an Aspie has in fact been imposed upon by society, and what reparations, if any, that Aspie is entitled to, and how much effort an Aspie ought to make to leap beyond the bounds of the suppression if society denies reparations, and to what degree anyone, Aspie or NT, should sympathize with that Aspie.

3) It demonstrates to any member of this forum that hot issues such as these can be freely discussed here despite assertions to the contrary by some in the past.

You should be warned however, that by discussing the issue in the open like this, it leaves third parties in a position of being able to comment, so it may be that you and Strict will hear opinions that are contrary to your own and not ones you will necessarily like.

Maurice said:

"and How safe do the folks taking refuge here from abusive fights on other boards, feel any longer, if someone here is allowed to repeatedly scream and rant and bluster that a seriously impacting life injustice experience for another member is a whine? The very nature of the question itself proves it a duty of care towards all members' health and security of person to answer it in my favour not in Strict's."

answers:

For whatever reason, since the earliest days of Aspergia, you two have not gotten along, but for the most part, I have gotten along with both of you. Far from clouding my ability to make a judgement in this case, my knowing both of you enables me to see that this discussion ought to continue as long as it suits both parties to continue, so that everything that you both have to say can be said. When ONE party elects to discontinue, then it ought to end.

You two are sort of like geysers that errupt pretty much on time. Once the steam boils off, you're both quiet until the next time.

As for Strict's verbiage, his "voice" in recent years is somewhat different than in the "good old days" of Aspergia when he used to post more often in a careful tone of neutrality as does, but it seems to me that Strict has had enough life experiences since then that he has become a bit more blunt, probably as the result of getting whacked on the nose by life's gigantic lessons. The more reality you face, the more real you tend to be. Reality is stark, sometimes cold, sometimes warm, somemtimes blunt. Strict is sometimes all of those things.

I can tell you that I tend to be less publically "holier than thou" and "in your face" than I used to be -except with Democrats, drug addicts, and other grossly immoral people- and that is what enables me to not to take sides in this issue and some others. But I will also admit that I have become a bit jaded at the apathy of some Aspies to get off their butts and advocate for themselves too, thus my outbursts of frustration against many Aspies in recent months.

Because of my experiences with advocacy, I have also been quick to call into question those which purport to be advocates, but ultimately wind up doing more harm than good with their ignorances, such as GP on and Mark .

You've changed too. AFF persists in existing, but you don't rant against them as often as you have. Perhaps we all change with age, if we do not exactly mellow.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Maurice wrote excerpted;

and How safe do the folks taking refuge here from abusive fights on other boards, feel any longer, if someone here is allowed to repeatedly scream and rant and bluster that a seriously impacting life injustice experience for another member is a whine? The very nature of the question itself proves it a duty of care towards all members' health and security of person to answer it in my favour not in Strict's.

As a fairly new member I can say that I feel quite 'safe' here, in that;I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, or to always understand. Nor do I expect all others to agree with my supposed motives.

My own personal bias is towards 'tough love,'

those who in 'face time' have told me to 'suck it up' or in othe words, 'stop whining, and get on with life', have been most helpful to me. (sort of like the 'cold water' thrown over an hysteric in fiction).

Much of what is being debated between strict and maurice is kind of beyond me, but that is Ok, because i don't expect to 'get' all the 'history' between people in any group, nor do I expect to 'get' everything in discussions.

renaissanzeladyRL

Subject: Re: Autism sufferers 'better at problem solving'To: FAMSecretSociety Received: Friday, June 19, 2009, 9:38 AM

>> Ah, I see you're selectively selecting only the most recent post of mine to selectively discriminate The present argument is the relevant one, and as there are quotes in the present argument I made them. >as a little kid, you state you wrote some literary masterpiece that got taken away from you, As a big kid, not a little kid, and it does not need to have been a masterpiece.>and how you've been so horribly wronged that you're unable to get something published.That anti-school writing is not easily published on a big scale, is not because of the writers' personal history at all, it's because there is control of the range of ideas the

media powers consider acceptable to allow the public to think. Ideas about money reform or types of economy that remove the need seek jobs competitively - not the need to work, just the need to seek jobs competitively - don't get published either. Science that is to any degree pro-paranormal and not Dawkinsian materialist fails the cenasorship process called "peer review" and doesn't get published in scientific papers.Now, as regards that I can'tg et anything published, I had this anti-school article published online by the ish Autism Network in 2007www.scottishautismn etwork.org. uk/FacultiesNotG ifts.docand I have a contribution in the collection of aspie writngs on mental health that Dean Worton and Luke Beardon are still planning to publish despite the personal pain as well as disruption that was done to their collection books project by the suicide of Genevieve Edmonds.> Why not rewrite it, since it seems probable that

after these decades, you've not still got the original manuscript? I won't submit to injustices to please your ego. (1) I will only rewrite it in circumstances where I can force it to be acknowledged as a child's book and not presented as just another adult's book, (2) I won't subject it what happens to a normal adult's novel, that when you are not already an established name it is near-automatically rejected. Thuis happens regardless fo whether an adult's first offering is actually any good, e.g. even the first Harry Potter book was rejected 6 times before the agent made a lucky stike. but because I couldn't force everyone to interpret a rejection of the book in that way, to risk subjecting it to that normal adult book's experience would harm my struggle on the child author issue, > you not only haven't lost the ability to do it, but you've honed it to a fine edge, cutting with every word, so there's absolutely no reason (other than

everyone ganging up on poor old you) why you couldn't rewrite it and get it published based on its merits. I won't have an arrogant ego trip about its merits and allow that to override the absolute issue that I should have been allowed to complete it then.> all your incessant whining about how the system and the whole cruel world has done you wrong,Power can be misused. Since the history of slavery and torture and genocide would all be endorsed by claiming that power can't be misused, we can conclude with total certainty that it can be. Now, if power can be misused, there is a moral objective to seek to curtail or prevent its misuse, to defend oneself and others from said misuses. But how else do you speak out comprehensibly against anything, than by describing the thing you are speaking out against? If you are speaking out, do you describe it approvingly and acdeptingly? No, you desribe it critically, majoring on the injustice.

But this is what you incessantly just call whining. if nobody did what you call whining, i.e. spoke out against injustice in any way, there would be no democracy. What you call whining is what democracy is for.> that robbed you of being able to succeed at your pet project when you were but a mere boy,The greatest moral benefit of a child author success is to destroy the bigoted concept of a "mere" boy, at all.> grown past such a thing that presumably ruined your future and has left you an unhappy present. Growing past things is evil. Why? Because it's fatalist acceptance. For 3000 years religions and psychology have served the convenient interest of ruling classes, by preaching without any verifiable proof, that there is some noble merit to fatalistically accepting wrongs and hurts instead of standing up and doing anything about them.> Even worse than your own limitations, real or imagined, is allowing outsiders

to dictate to you that you have limitations that you do not, in fact, have: Nowhere have I claimed to have a single limitation because someone else has told me so. Everything I have ever said about my limitations has been from experience.>and yet, that's what you want the world to believe, that you've got this lack of limitations that you had available as a little boy, You have mangled your syntax here.> and you'll actually have valid proof that you're more than hot air-powered whine, I have an automatic right not have a shred required of me that is not required of the child authors who made it. Any other position is bowing to the injustice to any other extent than zero.For me to chase after your respect would be like the civil rights movement chasing after the klan's respect. All that your hate rants jumping up and down on an unjustice have made you, is a totally knowing wilful accessory to my former abuse,

deliberately fighting to keep me under discriminatory prejudice for having had an unjust experience, that is the opposite of every aspie society's purpose and makes you a destructive force backing bigotry against aspie justice - and I must point out to the mods that every word of that is a considered legal statement and not reckless emotion at all. This is critical now, as a mod issue. It is bigotry against the cause of speaking up for and advocating for aspies in any way at all ever, for any one of us to want such concept as "whine" ever to validly exist at all. No group can disagree with this statement, without thereby sabotaging the validity of speaking up for aspies in any way against any important ill-treatment, e.g. even psychiatric drugging. If anyone can ever ever be called "whining" for speaking about an injustice, then aspies getting hassle to take psychiatric drugs, or aspie parents with doctors taking bad decisions for their

children, will no longer speak out because they know the reality of their experience will just get rubbished and called whining, by loudmouth bullies who are happier not to listen to it - and where will they go then? - suicide? - then the entire purpose of us having any solidarity over the web at all is wiped out. I'm talking about ways that folks have benefitted practically and very seriously from their membership here, among other places. and How safe do the folks taking refuge here from abusive fights on other boards, feel any longer, if someone here is allowed to repeatedly scream and rant and bluster that a seriously impacting life injustice experience for another member is a whine? The very nature of the question itself proves it a duty of care towards all members' health and security of person to answer it in my favour not in Strict's.

The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free!

[Guest guest]

> While the Bible says that we are to ask God to forgive us our

> tresspasses as we forgive others who tresspass against us, it is not for

> the purpose of allowing any person or group of people to subject another

> person or group of people.

Then when we see that happen and we need to stand up to it, for this purpose we

also have backing to follow a parity of not forgiving. the " others who trespass

against us " bit is all about parity, mulilateralism against one-sidedness. It

makes some situational judging inevitable, same as practised by Jesus towards

the moneychangers. In fact, when you dig into the texts in Christianity, it

turns out they allow for far more situational adjustability of the extent of

forgiving than rigidly fatalist Eastern mysticism does. That is one reason why I

prefer Christianity to Eastern mysticism.

> So noted. But I am not sure what legality that statement actually has.

towards any issues that come up, for anyone else, over the effects of where

episodes like this will take the community's character. Or, lest I might get

into mod trouble for calling Strict negative things even though he is

continuitng to call me negative things without engaging in my answers to them,

and it was necessary to be seen by all to defend against the validity of

offensive treatment.

> I have, in my time, said that Aspies have whined and do whine about the

> circumstances which they do some degree have control over.

Isn't speaking out and pushing for change, exactly one of the ways to take

control over circumstances?

> 3) It demonstrates to any member of this forum that hot issues such as

> these can be freely discussed here despite assertions to the contrary by

> some in the past.

At present, it is demonstrating to any dangerously vulnerable member of this

forum, that gratuitously picking a personal hot issue out of nowhere when it is

not relevant, and blank repitition of personal insults regardless of what the

other party says, are being defined as discussion. this is not an object lesson

I choose to take part in giving, nor would ever ask anyone else to.

> it seems

> to me that Strict has had enough life experiences since then that he has

> become a bit more blunt, probably as the result of getting whacked on

> the nose by life's gigantic lessons.

I have found that all whacking life experiences are a lesson to be more caring

and less blunt. I can't empathise with anyone conceiving the reverse. Also, how

dare anyone conceive it ever semantically possible to take any point about

whacking experiences from anyone who is rubbishing my whacking experiences?

> my knowing both of you enables me to see that this discussion ought to

> continue as long as it suits both parties to continue,

It has never suited me to continue. I defend myself when attacked. There is a

difference between that and wanting to be attacked.

The more reality you face, the more

> real you tend to be. Reality is stark, sometimes cold, sometimes warm,

> somemtimes blunt. Strict is sometimes all of those things.

Strict is no longer conducting a reasoned or civil argument. He has simply

announced that he is going to continue to hurl name-calls no matter what I say,

unless I do exactly what he says with my own life.

That is neither a process that any reasoning and self-esteeming person will

volunteer to continue to take part in, I have got nothing constructive to show

the membership by consenting to continue it, and it is totally opposite to FAM's

description of its own environment. Having drawn the whole membership's

attention to that obvious fact, and having answered all the reasoning that

Strict put to me, hence shown I can, and that was out of necessity not

enjoyment,

> When ONE party elects

> to discontinue, then it ought to end.

I do indeed elect to discontinue. That was obvious from my last post too, wasn't

it? This episode has been nothing but a wanton personal attack launched out of

the blue, in supposed response to my writing on a completely different topic

where I had never mentioned the issue Strict has dragged up. It is completely

out of order to make myself answerable to persistent spite from a not-listener

with a vendetta targetted straight against my most definingly serious aspie life

scar. I am indeed not answerable, and when Strict stops dealing with answers and

just continues being personally abusive after them, the whole community has a

duty to be satisfied that I have said quite enough.

> Because of my experiences with advocacy, I have also been quick to call

> into question those which purport to be advocates, but ultimately wind

> such as GP on

> and Mark .

Juast so long as folks speaking for more than themselves consult with the folks

they say they are speaking for.

>

> You've changed too. AFF persists in existing, but you don't rant against

> them as often as you have.

AFF is no longer doing much. Its site has been on-and-off-line for a while. A

new member of Aspie Village who had been shopping around sites reported an

inability to register on the AFF site - and we told her that was a blessing. It

looks like AFF is spluttering on or slowly petering out. Hence less cause to

talk about them. No change in me at all.

[Guest guest]

Maurice....

Children have been complaining about burdensome homework for probably as long as

homework has existed.

Children over a long period of time have fantasized about such things as getting

rid of teachers and schools: consider " Joy to the world, the school burned

down! " and Pink Floyd's " The Wall " album.

You claim to be a " wronged child author " and " Child prodigy " and you state as

fact from your assessment that this is truth, but have nothing to show for it,

and why? You use the equivalent of the ancient " The dog ate my homework! "

excuse, where the dog is your parents/the system.

You claim you've been ruined by compulsory education: observation is that it

completely failed to teach you anything useful in the way of critical thinking

and how to learn from past mistakes made in history, as witnessed by your

complete misunderstanding of human nature as demonstrated by your pointless

cause, the nature of ecology as demonstrated by your statements in the past

about the virtues of exterminating all " dangerous animals " and the thought that

everyone should give you any real respect based on your statements you cannot

back up with evidence. As such, using the advice, " Write about what you know "

it is completely logical with the evidence that at 40+ years old you cannot

comprehend why people cannot suspend their disbelief about how you were a

" wronged child author prodigy " without seeing the proof themselves, combined

with your inability to realize just how ridiculous your statements come across,

that there's not any reasonable expectation that you were able to write anything

that someone could suspend their disbelief for any meaningful work of fiction

you wrote as a child, with the only option out is that what was written was

based on a pure fantasy world without anything taken from this real world as an

example to compare against. As such, it is infinitely more probable to the

reasoning reader/listener that some adults were telling you how wonderful your

creations were, just to be supportive and encouraging to a child, without

necessarily stating it with any true objectivity or legitimacy, but you

interpreted that to mean " I'm the best child author prodigy in the world! " which

led you to get all full of yourself. If I recall correctly, they disposed of

your manuscript in one way or another: the perfect way to keep you from getting

truly embarrassed by rejections when submitted to someone that's not biased for

you!

You've taken something based on the first two points and made it into a jihad:

your great novel and your ability to ever write something like it again is your

martyr, and your canon is based on the belief that what you teach, without

evidence, should be taken on faith: of course you're this great, wronged child

author prodigy! As such, everyone is out to get you, and you're out to get

them: you only allow for two options, convert to your beliefs in your religious

war, or be destroyed for being an infidel, by such worthless things as legal

threats if they go against your views of your martyrdom. Practical reality when

it comes to this persecution complex: the big bad world, on the whole, doesn't

care enough about you to come after you, because you have not accomplished

anything sufficiently notable to cause it to even wonder who you are, and that's

how the majority of humanity gets through their existence, mine included, thus

far, leaving only one real question: am I human or alien?

You are a prime example of a great literary work: that of " Moby Dick " where the

horrible compulsory education system/parents are the whale, and your

accomplishments are your missing leg, and you're living out a life of hunting

down the whale to kill it, all while destroying all resources (people's lives,

etc.) and frittering away your own life in order to correct the horrible " wrong "

imposed on you by the powers that be, that you claim ruined you.

You claim that people are belittling you and abusing you for your statements,

that they're continuing the abuse: the reality is that until you go towards a

more scientific route, and have outside observers test the theory that you're

truly some masterpiece writer, and document and testify to that, you don't have

a leg to stand on, as people are expressing their extreme disbelief as to your

assertions.

For someone that was a true child prodigy, the worst thing that could have

happened based on stated past history, since no brain damage (supposedly) was

done from traumatic injury or forced drug use, is that it was all a delay to the

schedule, and a rather major annoyance that someone's well-intentioned idea of

proper schooling got in the way of your pet project.

As " horrible " as your educational program is claimed to be, consider this: a

huge number of people never have access while in their youth to any significant

education, when they're most easily able to spend the time and energy to learn,

and as such, their lives are made far harder just to survive, let alone get

ahead in the world: they would jump at the opportunity offered by even a

" horrible ruinous compulsory education " to get out of the poverty they are in,

and would consider it a blessing. Instead, many are sold into slavery of

various types, such as the sex trade, or working in sweat shops, or recycling

materials while living in a toxic waste dump (this exists right now in China),

or they need, as little kids, to work hard on tending poor crops, just to eat,

and don't have time for an education while young, if ever.

Nobody can ruin someone's ability to think or perform some sort of skill related

to thinking, short of causing brain injury via some combination of drugs that

change neurological function, or traumatic brain injury: this is part of what

someone has learned, and can only be forgotten if that someone does not work at

it, and/or they decide to forfeit their will and ambition in regards to the

matter. In other words: nobody can change your will, no matter how hard they

try to convince you: only you can change your will, by your choice, and by your

choice alone. If you feel you can no longer do something that required thinking

and you acting, and they've not physically caused you the inability to do it,

it's your own fault, without outside help or exceptions.

In the real world of job interviews, anything you submit on your curriculum

vitae had better be something you can demonstrate that you have done and know in

the interview: at least, that's how it is with a lot of job interviews, and is

definitely the case in anything related to software development in particular,

and chances are things are the same in most technical positions. Just saying " I

can do this! " is not going to work, once they start challenging your assertions.

I know this very well, from being on both sides of the interview: all your

claims read like a puffed-up curriculum vitae, full of hot air and grandiose

verbiage, with no validity, short of clear evidence. From your point of view,

it seems you would attempt to sue any potential employer for even doubting what

you've stated, let alone for demanding visible evidence of its validity. The

great thing in the literary world, compared to the software development world:

most of the time, you not only are able to keep past examples of your work to

show potential employers, your works are also expected to be available to the

general public to see in fine detail, while for most other things beyond the

visible workings of a public-facing website, you are expressly forbidden by IP

requirements (short of being purely open source software) from demonstrating to

others what you yourself have done. It is so much easier in an interview for

literary things to demand what I've been insisting on all this time, to no

avail: put up or shut up. This is what is expected out of people in the real

world, if they expect to earn any respect at all, instead of contempt. Look up

the term " vaporware " as an exercise in expanding your vocabulary in technical

jargon

I will only shut up about your supposed " aspie scar " when you do: you have a

long-established habit of starting topics or derailing topics into your personal

vendetta against the world over all the things that you claim are crimes against

you in the past. You have this weird idea that you're the only former child (I

argue your viewpoints demonstrate you're not a former child at all, and

reasonable adults I've stated the basic facts, without names, would concur, and

just get a good laugh at the preposterousness of the self-proclaimed " wronged

child author prodigy " ) that has had the system dictate to you what your

schooling is: that's flat-out wrong, as I've had it, too, where I was not

allowed to take classes I wanted, no matter how hard I tried. An example: I

tried all throughout grades 7-12 to take a typing class, knowing that's a far

better solution considering my limitations than handwriting, not to mention my

interest in computers: I was never able to take that, and was forced to take

other classes I found of dubious value, so what do I end up doing for a living?

Typing! Typing, while using more of the keyboard (all!) than most people ever

use. It wasn't until 5-6 years out of high school that I finally got up to a

decent speed for typing without looking, or, about 15 years after I first

started with computer keyboards: this isn't something that was fast to learn for

me, for various reasons.

To recap: to an outsider, when the generalities are stated, this is the common

response to those that aren't looking to side with a purported victim

automatically (preaching to the choir):

Self-proclaimed prodigies face the reality that they are perceived (and

rightfully so) as being extremely arrogant, egotistical, judgmental spoiled

bratts in their eyes. What a way to put the maximum distance between anyone

else and yourself, by stating, obviously, that they're lesser beings than you

are. Most people won't want to hear anything about you or your tales of woe

after this point itself, unless they continue reading/listening in stunned

disbelief, to hear the anticipated comedy of why you aren't successful now.

Effectively claiming " The dog ate my homework! " doesn't fly with the general.

public, explaining that they took away your manuscript when you were a kid: no

proof from then means no proof other than an arrogant-sounding self-proclaimed

prodigy as a kid.

Claiming that ruinous homework/compulsory schooling will generated lots of

laughs: it is far from uncommon for kids of all ages (even into adulthood) to

hate schooling with a passion. I mean, songs have been sung by kids for ages,

fantasizing about the school burning down, and all the teachers dying, and

that's what I'm aware of, I doubt that's all there is!

In american culture, at least, we celebrate the underdog rising above all the

real or perceived injustices and speed bumps to emerge victorious: for a winner,

what doesn't kill them, makes them stronger, and for a loser, what doesn't kill

them, just causes them to whine: American culture (at least, it has been more

this way in the past) does not like a whiny loser that claims everything was

everyone's fault but their own, but demands they take charge of their lives.

Why, we even spend millions on making movies about people overcoming adversity

far greater than yours: look at " The Pursuit of Happyness " with Wil , as

the first one off the top of my head, but that's hardly the only one.

Your whole tirade comes across as that of " I know better than anyone else as to

what a proper education is! " while everything to date indicates that not only

did you not manage to extract anything useful from your dreaded compulsory

education, you clearly have not chosen to expand your self-education to the

point where at 40+, you still don't comprehend just how much of a pointless

complainer and ungrateful child you were then, and still are, and people don't

like people acting like a spoiled child at any age, but in adulthood, they like

it even less.

Threatening legal action against me or anyone else demanding that you put up or

shut up, indicating that if you can actually do it, you do it, or shut up about

it, without saying that it is absolutely impossible for you to ever prove it,

well, that also doesn't go over well in American culture, and makes you look

like a 40+ year-old child, once again: take it like a man, read why people are

chiding you, suck it up.

In the US, allowing yourself to be defined by something that happened in your

past without your control is the sign of a wimp, and someone with a defeatist

and fatalistic attitude, someone with a " Look at me, I'm such a sad puppy! " sign

on them. American culture likes to root for the underdog, but not one that acts

like the big bad world owes them the rest of the universe for any real or

perceived slight of any magnitude in the past. You weren't forcibly raped,

brain damaged, mangled, but instead, however much you hated it, you were

educated, by perhaps abnormally strict parents and local school system, and had

you taken proper advantage of it, you'd be stronger for it today. In the garden

of life, there's the roses and then there's the manure: you're one or the other,

depending on how you go about things.

The common person that's not looking to be a part of your choir sees that you're

on a life-long vendetta against an unhappy childhood, and see how much of a

preposterous waste that is, and laugh at the absurdity of it all. It isn't that

you should forget things, so much as you should learn from them as best you can,

and move forward: you can't go back and change the past, you can only go

forward, and focusing on the past to the exclusion of the future is an utter

waste, and to make it a life-long obsession to create a pity-party is very

unbecoming.

In case you managed to miss the message: until you put up, you have zero

credibility to anyone that's experienced life with the various warts and isn't

looking to join a religion, and you succeed in nothing better than annoying

people with constantly butting into their existence by derailing everything

towards complaining about your perceived past wrongs. As long as you ever

mention anything about your perceived wrongs of compulsory education and how you

were a wronged child author prodigy, I'll keep on bringing it up, if I'm not

otherwise occupied, because I can't tolerate seeing the wasted energy, or having

mine wasted, on something that's so senseless: I have no desire to listen to one

bad song forever, when the song shouldn't exist: that song should, at worst,

start out bad, but be happy at the end for overcoming the past, but I doubt that

will ever happen, so I insist that if that's the case, it not be played at all.

I can't make you do anything, not even suffer, and nobody can anyone else,

unless they're physically beating you in person: you are the only one that can

determine how you handle that. And, on the internet... you need a thicker skin.

If you want to try to take me to court for stating my firmly held opinion, where

I have not stated anything notable like " He's been having sex with my cat

again! " or " He raped my daughter! " or " He's an embezzler! " (I know the first two

can't possibly be true, I cannot comment on the third one!) then good luck with

that, and keep in mind, I'll make sure you pay every cent of my lost time at an

effective rate I would make a living at, in addition to legal fees (which are

for likely fewer hours, but more per hour). I am firmly of the opinion that any

reasonable court would laugh at your filing.

Oh, and that you'd bring being an Aspie into the whole equation: priceless!

That's no different than the news media bringing up someone accused of some

other crime and mentioning that point, too, and nobody wants to be associated

with someone that makes them look bad.

>

>

> Just thought I'd step in here:

>

> Strict said:

>

> " grown past such a thing that presumably ruined your future and has left

> you an unhappy present. "

>

> Maurice said:

>

> " Growing past things is evil. Why? Because it's fatalist acceptance. For

> 3000 years religions and psychology have served the convenient interest

> of ruling classes, by preaching without any verifiable proof, that there

> is some noble merit to fatalistically accepting wrongs and hurts instead

> of standing up and doing anything about them. "

>

> My reply:

>

> I think that depends on the religion. In Christianity, there is

> historical documentation outside the Bible that Christ existed and that

> he was crucified. At least one historical author notes that it was

> " claimed " that Christ rose from the dead. Place names written in the

> Bible still exist today, and the Biblical portion of the Dead Sea

> scrolls were nearly a word for word duplicate with the oldest known

> Hebrew Bible though the Hebrew Bible is NOT as old as the Dead Sea

> Scrolls themselves.

>

> While the Bible says that we are to ask God to forgive us our

> tresspasses as we forgive others who tresspass against us, it is not for

> the purpose of allowing any person or group of people to subject another

> person or group of people. The reason for this prayer/edict is because,

> to Christians, the Christian God has ultimate say over disposition over

> all of us. Only God can look into our hearts and know the true

> circumstances of our sins, and thus only he can judge us. Thus it is

> better for us to forgive and forget than it is to judge and hold

> prejudices over people. That's the Christian view anyway.

>

> Maurice said:

>

> All that your hate rants jumping up and down on an unjustice have made

> you, is a totally knowing wilful accessory to my former abuse,

> deliberately fighting to keep me under discriminatory prejudice for

> having had an unjust experience, that is the opposite of every aspie

> society's purpose and makes you a destructive force backing bigotry

> against

> aspie justice - and I must point out to the mods that every word of that

> is a considered legal statement and not reckless emotion at all.

>

> says:

>

> So noted. But I am not sure what legality that statement actually has.

> It is your opinion, and you have a right to have it. No one will take it

> away from you. Strict is offerring HIS opinion, and is not, as far as I

> can see, attempting to be an accessory to what you've suffered, nor does

> he consider himself such. But, I will let Strict speak for himself.

>

> Maurice said:

>

> This is critical now, as a mod issue. It is bigotry against the cause of

> speaking up for and advocating for aspies in any way at all ever, for

> any one of us to want such concept as " whine " ever to validly exist at

> all. No group can disagree with this statement, without thereby

> sabotaging the validity of speaking up for aspies in any way against any

> important ill-treatment, e.g. even psychiatric drugging. If anyone can

> ever ever be called " whining " for speaking about an injustice, then

> aspies getting hassle to take psychiatric drugs, or

> aspie parents with doctors taking bad decisions for their children, will

> no longer speak out because they know the reality of their experience

> will just get rubbished and called whining, by loudmouth bullies who are

> happier not to listen to it - and where will they go then? - suicide? -

> then the entire purpose of us having any solidarity over the web at all

> is wiped out. I'm talking about ways that folks have benefitted

> practically and very seriously from their membership here, among other

> places.

>

> says:

>

> I have, in my time, said that Aspies have whined and do whine about the

> circumstances which they do some degree have control over. I can tell

> you from having spoken with Aspies online or at conventions or what have

> you, that for SOME Aspies, the biggest obstacles to their own successes

> are their refusal to step outside the bounds of either self-imposed

> limitations, or those limitations which have truthfully been imposed

> upon them by society.

>

> One needs to look at what Midnight In Chicago does, and what you have

> done and are doing with your own website. Aspies can advocate for

> themselves and for other Aspies, yet at the same time, if EVERY Aspie

> who was capable would advocate for themselves, those of us who consider

> ourselves to be advocates would not have such a burden placed on our

> heads. In addition to having to work hard for ourselves individually, we

> have to work extra hard for the group of Aspies and autistics as a

> whole, many of whom are not willing to work hard for themselves.

>

> As for what I am going to about this little spat between you and Strict,

> the answer is to let it continue because:

>

> 1) Neither of you have trolled the forums, and what you are doing right

> now is not trolling, merely discussing, albiet with barbs thrown in now

> and then.

>

> 2) It presents two sides of a complex issue: Whether or not an Aspie has

> in fact been imposed upon by society, and what reparations, if any, that

> Aspie is entitled to, and how much effort an Aspie ought to make to leap

> beyond the bounds of the suppression if society denies reparations, and

> to what degree anyone, Aspie or NT, should sympathize with that Aspie.

>

> 3) It demonstrates to any member of this forum that hot issues such as

> these can be freely discussed here despite assertions to the contrary by

> some in the past.

>

> You should be warned however, that by discussing the issue in the open

> like this, it leaves third parties in a position of being able to

> comment, so it may be that you and Strict will hear opinions that are

> contrary to your own and not ones you will necessarily like.

>

> Maurice said:

>

> " and How safe do the folks taking refuge here from abusive fights on

> other boards, feel any longer, if someone here is allowed to repeatedly

> scream and rant and bluster that a seriously impacting life injustice

> experience for another member is a whine? The very nature of the

> question itself proves it a duty of care towards all members' health and

> security of person to answer it in my favour not in Strict's. "

>

> answers:

>

> For whatever reason, since the earliest days of Aspergia, you two have

> not gotten along, but for the most part, I have gotten along with both

> of you. Far from clouding my ability to make a judgement in this case,

> my knowing both of you enables me to see that this discussion ought to

> continue as long as it suits both parties to continue, so that

> everything that you both have to say can be said. When ONE party elects

> to discontinue, then it ought to end.

>

> You two are sort of like geysers that errupt pretty much on time. Once

> the steam boils off, you're both quiet until the next time.

>

> As for Strict's verbiage, his " voice " in recent years is somewhat

> different than in the " good old days " of Aspergia when he used to post

> more often in a careful tone of neutrality as does, but it seems

> to me that Strict has had enough life experiences since then that he has

> become a bit more blunt, probably as the result of getting whacked on

> the nose by life's gigantic lessons. The more reality you face, the more

> real you tend to be. Reality is stark, sometimes cold, sometimes warm,

> somemtimes blunt. Strict is sometimes all of those things.

>

> I can tell you that I tend to be less publically " holier than thou " and

> " in your face " than I used to be -except with Democrats, drug addicts,

> and other grossly immoral people- and that is what enables me to not to

> take sides in this issue and some others. But I will also admit that I

> have become a bit jaded at the apathy of some Aspies to get off their

> butts and advocate for themselves too, thus my outbursts of frustration

> against many Aspies in recent months.

>

> Because of my experiences with advocacy, I have also been quick to call

> into question those which purport to be advocates, but ultimately wind

> up doing more harm than good with their ignorances, such as GP on

> and Mark .

>

> You've changed too. AFF persists in existing, but you don't rant against

> them as often as you have. Perhaps we all change with age, if we do not

> exactly mellow.

>

>

>

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

"the "others who trespass against us" bit is all about parity, mulilateralism against one-sidedness. It makes some situational judging inevitable, same as practised by Jesus towards the moneychangers. In fact, when you dig into the texts in Christianity, it turns out they allow for far more situational adjustability of the extent of forgiving than rigidly fatalist Eastern mysticism does. That is one reason why I prefer Christianity to Eastern mysticism."

In Christianity, it's believed that the ability to know right and wrong is something humanity sought for itself, and we have been screwed ever since. We were told not to seek that knowledge and we did. The result is that we are always trying to judge what is right and what is wrong so that we do not commit wrongs against others. Likewise, if we can see that others are doing wrong, then we should be inclined to stay away from them so that we do not do wrong. But for us to condemn them for doing wrong is not ULTIMATELY our affair. It is God's. Many an innocent person has been condemned to death under earthly laws and many guilty parties have walked free. From Christianity's view, only God can look into the hearts of people and see whether they are guilty or innocent.

"towards any issues that come up, for anyone else, over the effects of where episodes like this will take the community's character. Or, lest I might get into mod trouble for calling Strict negative things even though he is continuitng to call me negative things without engaging in my answers to them, and it was necessary to be seen by all to defend against the validity ofoffensive treatment."

Strict could have deleted the adjectives and still made his point. I see that his verbiage could be less caustic."Isn't speaking out and pushing for change, exactly one of the ways to take control over circumstances?"

Yes, but we have to look at what is reasonable and what isn't. If I had my way, the world would be a different place. We would bulldoze cities and plant trees and farmland. Various forms of what I consider immorality would be eliminated. There would be no abortion. We'd stop giving foreign aid to undeserving countries, etc.

But even if I rebuilt the world according to my own framework, someone else would be made miserable as a result. And so I must face the fact that as long as I share the world, I must accept that in many situations, there will be compromises that have to be made on MY part.

"At present, it is demonstrating to any dangerously vulnerable member of this forum, that gratuitously picking a personal hot issue out of nowhere when it is not relevant, and blank repitition of personal insults regardless of what the other party says, are being defined as discussion. this is not an object lesson I choose to take part in giving, nor would ever ask anyone else to."

Perhaps he can lay off the tired old argument then. However, it can be difficult, because you do tend to cite the educational system as being repressive from time to time, and I personally do not see it that way. If it's repressive, it is repressive in a way that is antithetical to your perceptions. I believe that most of the elective courses kids get these days should be eliminated in favor of reading, writing, math, science, economics, history, "elocution and deportment", ethics, politics, manners, psychology, halth, sociology, art, and music, with mandatory passing grades in these areas.

The electives of today would be replaced by elementary vocational training with students first being tested to find out what areas interest them most with subsequent elective classes designed to help them achieve their professional goals.

I think that the core areas of study that I have cited ought to be mandatory for all, with assistance and remedial classes available for those who need them. But society has different opinions. Employers believe an education is necessary for employment, but society does not want to believe this, preferring to see K through 12 as some sort of prolonged day-care where the kids ought to be entertained as they are taught.

"I have found that all whacking life experiences are a lesson to be more caring and less blunt. I can't empathise with anyone conceiving the reverse. Also, how dare anyone conceive it ever semantically possible to take any point about whacking experiences from anyone who is rubbishing my whacking experiences?"

I see it differently. If you are running a board through a table saw, if you don't hold it properly, the blade will kick it back at you and you might get bruised or otherwise hurt. The result is, you learn to hold the board properly and with a grip that is more firm, and you teach others to do the same. You do so with greater urgency because you don't want to see them hurt. That one cares is the "soft" portion of teaching a lesson. But the urgency with which one teaches may be blunt and hard.

"It has never suited me to continue. I defend myself when attacked. There is a difference between that and wanting to be attacked."

Understood. I'll read what Strict says in the post that follows this one and address it. If I do not do so right away, it is because I am running an errand, but I will do it.

"Strict is no longer conducting a reasoned or civil argument. He has simply announced that he is going to continue to hurl name-calls no matter what I say, unless I do exactly what he says with my own life."

I think because Strict has inserted a bunch of pejoratives into his statements, you are taking it ONLY as an attack rather than constructive criticism WITH an attack.

I am not justifying what he is doing. Just saying that there is worth in what he says, even if how he says it is not with proper manners.

"I do indeed elect to discontinue. That was obvious from my last post too, wasn'tit?"

Okay.

"This episode has been nothing but a wanton personal attack launched out of the blue, in supposed response to my writing on a completely different topic where I had never mentioned the issue Strict has dragged up. It is completely out of order to make myself answerable to persistent spite from a not-listener with a vendetta targetted straight against my most definingly serious aspie life scar. I am indeed not answerable, and when Strict stops dealing with answers and just continues being personally abusive after them, the whole community has a duty to be satisfied that I have said quite enough."

Well, when you cite the educational system as being at fault for things, people will tie it to the problems you faced with the system. Alternatively, if they disagree with your general argument, they will argue with a counter-point.

I don't expect to make any argument on this forum without someone arguing to the contrary, and anyone who knows my history is well within their rights to say "You're just saying that because XXXX happened to you in your past." They may be WRONG in that assertion, but if they believe it to be true, then they have a right to say it, just as I have a right to defend myself.

Still, I can see your point, because people have said at times in my life "You're just saying that because XXXX happened to you in your past" just to goad me.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Just a couple of comments here:

"American culture (at least, it has been more this way in the past) does not like a whiny loser that claims everything was everyone's fault but their own, but demands they take charge of their lives."

The flipside of that is that in American culture or ANY culture, the biggest obstacle to success short of one's own personal failings are other people messing things up. People seem to ask forgiveness for accidentally or intentionally throwing a wrench in the works, but they have no problem berating people who justly accuse them of messing up their affairs either.

If someone commits some act against another, it seems they do not REALLY want to take responsibility for it. What they want is instant and immediate forgiveness in return for their "I'm sorry" or else they want to say "I'm sorry" and feel good about the fact that they made the gesture even if the other one does not grant the forgiveness. In fact, they can BLAME the other one for not forgiving them for their transgressions.

One essential mistake we all make is believing that anyone is obliged to forgive someone for their transgressions - especially those who have no religious convictions which incline them to do so.

If Maurice is right in his assertion that his masterpiece was destroyed and his career destroyed by an inefficient educational system, he is within his rights to refuse to let it go or to forgive. I will agree, however, that it does not serve him to hang on to these feelings though as it can become the proverbial ball and chain to him as he proceeds throughout life.

But sometimes what we hate about people is that they try to never let the transgressor know that s/he/they has committed an offense for which there was sufferring, either perceived or real. Yet seeing as these people had transgressions committed against them, they are within their rights to respond in any way they legally chose.

"Your whole tirade comes across as that of "I know better than anyone else as to what a proper education is!" while everything to date indicates that not only did you not manage to extract anything useful from your dreaded compulsory education, you clearly have not chosen to expand your self-education to the point where at 40+, you still don't comprehend just how much of a pointless complainer and ungrateful child you were then, and still are, and people don't like people acting like a spoiled child at any age, but in adulthood, they likeit even less."

I can see both sides of this. I see threads running throughout my life and some of these threads are a series of interconnected positive events. Some are a series of interconnencted negative events. It seems that when positive events compound themselves, I wonder when my "luck" is going to run out, but when negative events compound themselves, I want to blame the source of the problem in the first place and everyone or everything that compounded the situation along the way.

However, I feel justified in my feelings because deep down, I know that very few of my successes are based purely on "luck" but mostly on my own efforts and God's will, and I know that circumstances which compounded to form a failure were not purely incidental, but ones that were countered by me, or ones I attempted to thwart.

To be succinct: Neither luck nor failure rides roughshod over me. I attempt to thwart failure as much as I attempted to work towards success. Thus when I blame someone else or something for a failure, I feel I can do so freely because I know I have tried all I can to avert failure. Likewise, I attribute my success to myself and to those others and those other circumstances which have helped me.

Yet I know that to some people, when I rant about a series of events which caused a failure, to other people, it sounds like so much whining. They would have had to have lived the events to see my perspective.

"In the US, allowing yourself to be defined by something that happened in your past without your control is the sign of a wimp, and someone with a defeatist and fatalistic attitude, someone with a "Look at me, I'm such a sad puppy!" sign on them. American culture likes to root for the underdog, but not one that acts like the big bad world owes them the rest of the universe for any real or perceived slight of any magnitude in the past."

Again, I believe that this is because Americans don't like to admit to themselves that in their quest to enact their real or perceived "rights" they impose on everyone else around them. Not many want to take responsibility for themselves anymore.

People in the US tend to root for the underdog, but it's a hypocritical sort of rooting. There was a movie called "My Bodyguard" about a kid who got beat up in school who befriended a big lout who defended him against bullies.

I saw it with my class in grade school. The bullies in my class rooted for the beat up kid and cheered his defender. Then after school they beat the crap out of me - as usual.

So I am not always going to be swayed by the argument that "because society believes X" you should fall into line.

In a very real sense, we are all in this forum and forums like it because we don't fit in anywhere else despite the fact that we would like to believe that we are essentially no different than those who inhabit the more popular realm of society.

Yes, we may be looking for association with other Aspies, or to share our insights, or to talk about autism, but we do all face certain problems that are not of our own making, and this is another commonality we have.

"You weren't forcibly raped, brain damaged, mangled, but instead, however much you hated it, you were educated, by perhaps abnormally strict parents and local school system, and had you taken proper advantage of it, you'd be stronger for it today. In the garden of life, there's the roses and then there's the manure: you're one or the other, depending on how you go about things.

Yes he was, but it is entirely possible that the education he received was not right for him and that the accommodations he needed were ones that could not be given. Asking for these accommodations is no different than a handicapped person asking for a parking space close to the door. Not having the accommodations -where it is legal for them to be made- is just grounds for "whining" at the least, and lawsuits at the most.

Still, we were not there, and you are right in your argument that nothing prevents Maurice from re-writing his novel and/or seeking out the education he would have preferred NOW.

"Oh, and that you'd bring being an Aspie into the whole equation: priceless! That's no different than the news media bringing up someone accused of some other crime and mentioning that point, too, and nobody wants to be associated with someone that makes them look bad."

Well, we ARE Aspie anyway, aren't we, and so we do have limitations that we cannot move beyond. But another thing to remember is that we do have gifts that others do not have, so perhaps we can level the teeter totter by using our gifts to offset our deficiences.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

strictnon_conformist wrote: " Children have been complaining about burdensome

homework for probably as long as homework has existed ... <snip> ... "

I can attest to that fact. I found homework burdensome as did my peers when we

were in grade school. My son and his peers find homework burdensome. And,

oddly enough, when I read my father's report cards from the 1920s and 1930s, I

can see that he -- and most likely his peers -- found homework burdensome.

strictnon_conformist wrote: " ... <snip> ... Children over a long period of

time have fantasized about such things as getting rid of teachers and schools:

consider " Joy to the world, the school burned down! " and Pink Floyd's " The Wall "

album ... <snip> ... "

Again, I can attest that for almost 100 years now children have given new lyrics

to popular songs of the day that speak loudly to being done with school and

seeing teachers disappear from their lives. It's a rite of passage in many

respects. :-)

strictnon_conformist wrote: " ... <snip> ... using the advice, " Write about

what you know " ... <snip> ... "

This advice has been given to countless numbers of people over the years and I,

myself, have given that very same advice to young songwriters who ask me how to

write a hit song. I tell them they need to focus on what they know rather than

try to follow the scent of money.

strictnon_conformist wrote: " ... <snip> ... In other words: nobody can change

your will, no matter how hard they try to convince you: only you can change your

will, by your choice, and by your choice alone ... <snip> ... "

Absolutely correct. I have oftentimes posted in this forum (and in other

forums) that no one can make another person say, feel or do something that

person is not already prepared and willing to say, feel or do. Furthermore, an

individual can only be a doormat if they allow themselves to be treated like a

doormat by others.

strictnon_conformist wrote: " ... <snip> ... Why, we even spend millions on

making movies about people overcoming adversity far greater than yours: look at

" The Pursuit of Happyness " with Will , as the first one off the top of my

head, but that's hardly the only one ... <snip> ... "

As a true story, it is inspiring to say the least and yes, over the years of

cinematography, there have been a number of movies released that retell true

stories of people overcoming adversity and the hand life dealt them either at

birth or somewhere along the way.

Another example of someone rising above the hand life dealt is Grandma Moses.

She experienced the Civil War. She married a farm worker, S. Moses, in

1887 when she was 27 years of age at a time when women were married off in their

teen years. She and her husband settled on a farm in Virginia where she gave

birth to 10 children and saw 5 die in infancy. She was a widow by the time 1927

came around and never remarried for as long as she lived. She lived to be 101

years old.

Born in 1860, on " Grandma " Moses started painting in 1937 when

she was 76 going on 77. The Depression Era had been raging for nearly 8 years at

that point and showed no signs of letting up any time soon. She was a

self-taught artist and she became an American celebrity.

Her motto in life was this: " Life is what you make it. Always has been.

Always will be. "

That's a darn good motto by which to live one's life as far as I'm concerned.

strictnon_conformist wrote: " .... <snip> ... that [maurice would] bring being

an Aspie into the whole equation: priceless! ... <snip> ... "

While it is true that having AS certainly adds some obstacles and challenges to

living in the NT world, it does not negate the fact that regardless of a

diagnosis, each of us must work to the best of our abilities in order to attain

our goals.

I have told my son repeatedly that he is not defined by his diagnoses (of which

there are many) nor is he defined by how he was abused in the public school

system from Grades 2 through 6. What matters is what he is accomplishing now,

and what he plans to accomplish in the future.

Prior to going in for major surgery on the 10th of this month, he decided to

document events leading up to his thymectomy and events following his

thymectomy. Why would a 13 year old want to do something so morbid? Because he

was scared out of his mind prior to the operation and there was NOTHING by a

youth or child that was available to him that would help calm his fears.

So he decided to create a resource for those who will follow after him --

whether it's a thymectomy or heart surgery or any other form of major surgery --

who also carry this fear of the unknown surgery and the unknown recovery.

Rather than allow the situation to beat him down into the ground, he's chosen to

wrestle that fear to the ground and shine a light on what this fear really is.

In the animal kingdom, animals cannot let what happened to them in the past keep

them down otherwise they will die for having done so. They continue to move

forward and to follow their nature. Those who do not move forward doom

themselves to an early demise.

Asperger's is not what prevents people from accomplishing things in life; fear

is what prevents people from achieving their goals.

strictnon_conformist wrote: " ... <snip> ... That's no different than the news

media bringing up someone accused of some other crime and mentioning that point,

too, and nobody wants to be associated with someone that makes them look bad ...

<snip> ... "

While it's true that having AS brings certain splinter skills and out-of-the-box

talents to the picture, it is the individual and the effort put forth by the

individual that determines whether the individual is living life to the best of

his or her abilities.

Just as we hate to hear the media claim that a mass murderer possibly has AS or

that some astronaut is trying to use a recent diagnosis of AS to excuse her from

having commiting a crime, it's important to accept that each of us is

responsible for doing our best in life regardless of a diagnosis or lack

thereof.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... If Maurice is right in his assertion that his masterpiece was destroyed and his career destroyed by an inefficient educational system, he is within his rights to refuse to let it go or to forgive. I will agree, however, that it does not serve him to hang on to these feelings though as it can become the proverbial ball and chain to him as he proceeds throughout life.

But sometimes what we hate about people is that they try to never let the transgressor know that s/he/they has committed an offense for which there was sufferring, either perceived or real. Yet seeing as these people had transgressions committed against them, they are within their rights to respond in any way they legally chose ... <snip> ... "

I do not doubt that Maurice's works were destroyed by individuals or groups of individuals in the educational system. That is not the same thing as having one's works destroyed by an inefficient educational system.

That being said, if they were destroyed and it causes Maurice so much pain, then he must recreate those lost works and move forward.

It is one thing to speak out against transgressions and perpetrators even decades after the fact however it is equally important for the individual to put a stop to the effects the transgressions and perpertrators have on the individual's life.

As Aspies, all of us have suffered at the hands of those who were in authority over us over the years be they teachers, principals, employers, spouses, et al. If we choose to continue to live in the shadows of those who have done terrible things against us, we will never be able to speak out effectively against them and their bad deeds.

The sweetest form of revenge -- if you wish to call it that -- is to succeed in life. To do less than this is to leave the power over our lives in the hands of our abusers and tormentors.

Raven

[Guest guest]

But sometimes what we hate about people is that they try to never let the

transgressor know that s/he/they has committed an offense for which there was

sufferring, either perceived or real. Yet seeing as these people had

transgressions committed against them, they are within their rights to respond

in any way they legally chose.

should read

But sometimes what we hate about people is that they try to never let the

transgressor stop knowing that s/he/they has committed an offense for which

there was sufferring, either perceived or real. Yet seeing as these people had

transgressions committed against them, they are within their rights to respond

in any way they legally choose.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" ... <snip> ... If Maurice is right in his assertion

> that his masterpiece was destroyed and his career destroyed by an

> inefficient educational system,

I am not responding any further to Strict, and I will make no further debating

points at all, but I must weed out the factual errors, originating from him,

that other folks have picked up and are now debating too, before the topic ends.

The following are simply in order not to leave the factual record distorted:

* No adult came along and physically destroyed it. This brand new story is a

malicious defamation. What they destroyed was my opportunity to complete it, by

setting me a critically impossible school workload.

* There is a record of the fact that I was writing it, in a local newspaper

write-up on my school's supposed wonders, that appeared in 1980 after I passed

some exams at an accelerated age. If there is that lucky record for me, there

can be many others who there is no such redord for.

* Nobody else has reacted to the issue in the way Strict claims. I can remember

one other Aspergian Island member being negative, in a calmer way and in only

one post. The vast majority of reactions have been favourable, and have taken it

as another story among many of aspie hurts, without seeing it as belittling

other folks' stories in any way. The ish Autism Network and the Autism

Coordinator for Fife both took it up as an issue to refer to in their work.

* I have already said before that I have never claimed it was a masterpiece.

[Guest guest]

maurice wrote: " ... <snip> ... No adult came along and physically destroyed it.

This brand new story is a malicious defamation. What they destroyed was my

opportunity to complete it, by setting me a critically impossible school

workload ... <snip> ... "

By your own admission then, the only thing that prevents you from writing again

is yourself therefore you are doing yourself a great disservice, maurice.

As for the critically impossible school workload, it is a non-issue at this

point in your life.

Free yourself and write to your heart's content. Write for yourself, not for

others. Along the way, you may find others who hear resonance in what you

write.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" ... <snip> ... If Maurice is right in his assertion

> > that his masterpiece was destroyed and his career destroyed by an

> > inefficient educational system,

> I am not responding any further to Strict, and I will make no further debating

points at all, but I must weed out the factual errors, originating from him,

that other folks have picked up and are now debating too, before the topic ends.

The following are simply in order not to leave the factual record distorted:

Yeah, right: like you'll ever shut up about being a " wronged child author " and a

" prodigy " I know that is an impossibility for you.

>

> * No adult came along and physically destroyed it. This brand new story is a

malicious defamation. What they destroyed was my opportunity to complete it, by

setting me a critically impossible school workload.

But as you'd have it, someone destroyed it by having you be unable to complete

it, and I seem to recall you mention that people came along and took away parts

of it right after you wrote it: get it straight, as I don't think I remember

your statements all incorrectly like that. But, as I stated, all it was

effectively, was merely a schedule slip: they did not destroy your opportunity

to complete it, merely delayed things. Wow, talk about a weak excuse, and you

go and make a federal case out of it, repeatedly, if possible.

> * There is a record of the fact that I was writing it, in a local newspaper

write-up on my school's supposed wonders, that appeared in 1980 after I passed

some exams at an accelerated age.

" Supposed " is the correct term: if it isn't completed, it isn't completed, and

on your part (and anyone else's) it is pure supposition to judge that you are a

self-proclaimed " child writing prodigy " and a " wronged child author " when the

worst thing that happened to slow you down from completing it was that they

actually made you do schoolwork instead of your pet project. Merely a record

that you were writing it has absolutely no factual value in a court of law or

public opinion when it comes to completing something required for reasonable

judgment of being some self-described " child writing prodigy " and is the stuff

of vaporware announcements. Do you know how many unfinished " great american

novels " exist in people's drawers and computers? It's a very common thing, but,

like your presumed masterpiece (again, if you were such a child prodigy author,

it must be a masterpiece, following your line of faulty reasoning) there's no

proof for the rest of the world that they can latch onto. I have my sister's ex

father-in-law as an example of a literary piece that's never been published,

that's science fiction, that's far better than anything you have presented

useful evidence for, that shows an understanding of what people and technology

is really like (even the made-up stuff) and, what's most important: it's a

complete, readable work, that's actually a good story, that I have read,

personally. You? A non-stop litany of posts, you have your website (at least

you have had it in the past) all proclaiming your writing sainthood, if we are

to believe you, and your martyrdom as to how you weren't able to accomplish a

single pet task: writing a book.

If there is that lucky record for me, there can be many others who there is no

such redord for.

> * Nobody else has reacted to the issue in the way Strict claims. I can

remember one other Aspergian Island member being negative, in a calmer way and

in only one post. The vast majority of reactions have been favourable, and have

taken it as another story among many of aspie hurts, without seeing it as

belittling other folks' stories in any way. The ish Autism Network and the

Autism Coordinator for Fife both took it up as an issue to refer to in their

work.

Did it never occur to you (I'm betting it does, based on my first-hand

understanding and witness of how people actually act in real life) that people

are quick to agree with you, because they know that if they disagree with you,

they'll not only be on your bad side, but they'll also never hear the end of it,

while if they appear to be on your good side, they'll never hear much (or very

little) from you again? Did it occur to you, that with all your posturing and

claims about suing people that perhaps they felt some fear because of the way

you do your best into legally bullying people? There's something on the public

broadcasting stations, can't remember the name of the interviewer, on National

Public Radio, that's here at least in the US, syndicated all over the country.

I have sat and listened to this woman, who I know is fairly advanced in age,

verbally agree, peacefully, with things stated by the interviewees, that no sane

person or anyone with wisdom would ever agree to, saying " That's beautiful " when

it was anything but. And, as I stated before: those that are quick to agree

with you and give you any REAL support are also those that have aligned desires:

to get what they feel entitled to, which includes the ability to be mad that

things weren't done the way they thought they should be done. You haven't

proven anything, except you can conflate a schedule delay into a jihad, with

your schedule being the martyr, and demand that people believe in you and your

cause as a religion does: believe it and they will see it, as opposed to a more

scientific method, see it and believe it. In this world where things aren't

supposed to be a religion, you need to show real proof before you can have

people accept your claims: you have none, and for as long as you've gone without

completing what you are now claiming wasn't destroyed, since past behavior

statistically is the best predictor of future behavior, you'll be dead of old

age before you ever actually have any proof. It can just as reasonably be

argued that the only reason you haven't bothered completing it is because

somehow, in the subconscious part of your mind, you know that if looked at more

seriously, it really wasn't nearly as good as you (or anyone else) proclaimed it

to be: it was just adults encouraging you as a youth, nothing more. Relax: it's

very common in the software development field to go back to code you've written

in the past, look at it, and say to yourself: what was I thinking when I wrote

THAT??? I've even known myself to do the same thing, most often when I've been

tired or sick when writing the original code in question.

> * I have already said before that I have never claimed it was a masterpiece.

>

If it never got done, it cannot be called a masterpiece, but yet, you have

repeatedly claimed you were a child writing prodigy: does a prodigy produce

garbage? I would logically argue that calling yourself a prodigy all this time,

without the proof of it, as stated, screams entitlement: the feeling that you're

entitled to respect you have never fully earned, based on your lack of

completing a project from childhood, from a mere scheduling delay, when now you

exceed the age of 40 years old, according to the rotations of the earth around

the sun.

There's a quote, I can't remember who it's from, in relation to software

development, that perfectly applies here:

" Real artists ship! "

You are not a real artist (or prodigy, as you like to call yourself), then, but

merely a producer of vaporware, which are written about in the press all the

time, like your supposed work was: never finished, never shipped, for whatever

reason. Why haven't you shipped yet?

[Guest guest]

Back on the thread of problem solving:I find that I have an aptitude for finding ways to solve problems with computers, and there are a fair number of other aspies I know with simillar capabilities. During an internship at a children's museum in a robotics class, I met a nine year old that seems to fit the profile of aspergers traits that intuitively understood mechanical engineering. However, from that class of nine to fourteen year olds I had questions/learned a few things:

Unlike Raven or , I will never be a teacher. Being on the other side of the table was too illuminating. :PSimplicity wins.Why were there no girls in the class out of sixteen people?

[Guest guest]

Unlike Raven or , I will never be a teacher. Being on the other side of the table was too illuminating.

Sometimes being a student is enough. ;-)

Simplicity wins.The KISS principle (not as in the band KISS but rather in terms of "Keep It Simple, Stupid") is always best. Since nature goes with simplicity and it works until man messes with it, simplicity is the way to go!

Why were there no girls in the class out of sixteen peopleThere were no girls in the class out of sixteen people because it is socially unacceptable for girls to be interested in those sorts of things. When I was in high school, I begged to be allowed to take Shop and I was denied because I was a girl and girls took Home Economics if they wanted to take a class other than the regular subjects. Similar discrimination, though unspoken, exists today.

Raven

[Guest guest]

When I was a child of about that age, while most other kids were reading books about sports and such, I had books about how things worked. Some of these were clearly for children with very simplified drawings of how things like car engines, rockets and so forth worked, but it was factual and really how they worked. I also had other like books about basic science, astronomy, geology, etc.

Maybe this particular child has something like them? If they did, then that could point to an aptitude in those fields.

During an internship at a children's museum in a robotics class, I met a nine year old that seems to fit the profile of aspergers traits that intuitively understood mechanical engineering. A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

[Guest guest]

If you just need an audience, you could post stories here.

If you want more feedback, I'm on a writing site I could send you the address for. If you post stories there, other members will read it, rate it and give feedback. There are also workshops you can sign up for, though I haven't tried that yet. It does require a small fee, however. You also keep all rights to the stories you post.

I've got a few stories posted there and so far they have been well received. So far I haven't done any reviews.

By your own admission then, the only thing that prevents you from writing again is yourself therefore you are doing yourself a great disservice, maurice. A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Simplicity wins.

>

> The KISS principle (not as in the band KISS but rather in terms of " Keep It

Simple, Stupid " ) is always best.   Since nature goes with simplicity and it

works until man messes with it, simplicity is the way to go!

>

> Why were there no girls in the class out of sixteen people

>

> There were no girls in the class out of sixteen people because it is socially

unacceptable for girls to be interested in those sorts of things.  When I was in

high school, I begged to be allowed to take Shop and I was denied because I was

a girl and girls took Home Economics if they wanted to take a class other than

the regular subjects.  Similar discrimination, though unspoken, exists today.

I always found that odd. I do not fit the stereotype of a 'girly

girl', and like my mother, I dislike the colour pink strongly. It

gives me a headache.

In this case the pressure is likely mainly from parents and peers. The

reasons I think that are:

*The activities coordinator is a woman.

*She also likes Legos and the Legos Mindstorms robotics systems.

*I have learned by experience how reliable random peers are in a system.

> Raven