politics and autism

It revolves around a tempest in a teacup involving Sarah Pripas who
co-directs a chapter of ASAN:
http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/category.php?categoryid=15
http://asanla.blogspot.com/

Apparently, among autistics it is an open secret that Sarah has a blog
at http://autisticcats.blogspot.com/

It seems Sarah was posting letters and such semi-anonymously on her blog
in support of ASAN as if she was some interested 3rd party and not the
co-director of a chapter. This then caused her to engage in some heavy
handed censorship when anyone mentioned her position at ASAN where her
identity is fully acknowledged.

When she found out her full name was linked to her blog on a 3rd party
site, she asked for the site owner to remove the page that made the
link. In the end, she made an explicit allegation of harassment to scare
the site owner into engaging in some more heavy handed censorship.

I didn't like the manipulation of alleging harassment no matter how
outrageous the allegation, and I thought it lent credence to some
similar criticisms directed at ASAN and Ari Ne'eman, which saddens me.

I understand a lot of autistics use pseudonyms, and I understand why. Do
those use pseudonyms think it would be right to continue using the
pseudonym in some places after taking a very public position that
necessarily discloses one's autism?

Does anyone else think it is a little sock-puppetish to post support for
one's political organization under a pseudonym?

Yes, I do.

I can see that there would be times when some opinion is better
expressed without being linked back to the organisation. In that
sense, I can accept having an anonymous blog as valid.

But (and I say this without knowing anything much about the person,
the organisation, the blog or the situation) I do agree that "3rd
party" advocacy of an organisation you that you have any significant
links to is unethical.

Likewise, the manipulation and allegation of harassment is no doubt
only going to do one thing - backfire, dragging the reputation of the
organisation through the dirt.

What's more, by adopting that role in that organisation, she has made
herself something of a symbol of autism. When she uses underhand
manipulative tactics and bullying to get what she wants, a little bit
of that dirt sticks to all of us.

i think it is reasonable to maintain privacy barriers regarding some
kinds of personal information. if i want to maintain my privacy, i need
to be extremely careful that what i do non-anonymously can not be
linked to what i do anonymously.

yes. and it is the kind of thing that can compromise an anonymous
pseudonym.

-- astri

======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================

I'm not sure I'm following your question here. Sorry. Do you mean
would it be ok for me to keep posting here under this name even if I
was "recognizable" as myself, when people would not know that AM and
<insert real name> were the same person? Therefore making me look like
2 separate individuals? Or allowing me to act like to different
individuals?...dunno why that question is so hard for me to
understand...

Totally. What else could it be? Maybe I have a blind spot, but I can't
think of a legitimate reason to do that.

I do understand why people want to keep their identities private. And
I see no problem with it, as long as you are not using the privacy to
engage in...what's the word I'm looking for?...I mean, I'm not trying
to mislead anyone by not using my real name. I am trying to protect my
kids, since I talk about them and they are not old enough yet to give
me permission to share about them in public, ykwim? But if I were "me"
in this community, but then using this pseudonym to pretend I wasn't
me, it just seems...sketchy?

i do not use a pseudonym *here*, but i've been online long enough to recognize
the need for such (including a potential stalker or two that i thankfully had
brains enough not to give specific addresses to).

on an autistic level, where the stigma of the label itself presents a whole new
slew of problems, i also understand. keyword: "stigma". i have lost jobs in web
design because i was better at my "autism" sites than my regular sites, but i
couldn't show the interviewers the better work because i feared the stigma
associated with it. would i have been better off confessing? read on...

one can call up the "protocol" of an interview to a certain extent. even if
one's behavior is a little odd to the co-workers after hiring and you're getting
the job done, it's ok. but, if you come in with the label already, you're
automatically treated as if you're the incapably "token"
autie/retard/gimp/african-american/female/(insert stereotype here). (btw, i live
in the "enlightened" part of the bible belt in the US)

free advertising? megalomania? spam? fraud? (not sure where this goes, so pick one.)

no. you fit none of the above categories nor their counterparts.

-alice

I left out a critical word, so that might make it difficult to parse.
Regardless, I think whether one can preserve pseudonymity depends on
context and what one attempts to do with that pseudonymity.

In Sarah's case, I think she could have preserved her pseudonymity a
couple different ways. She could have posted anything prosyletizing for
ASAN from her ASAN chapter's blog under her real name, or she could have
indicated something about her association with ASAN when prosyletizing
for ASAN from her pseudonymous blog. Anything that indicated she is an
ASAN insider would have sufficed, in my opinion; even if it wasn't
enough to identify her.

The way she handled comment moderation was flawed too, but I am inclined
to think that was an error made in panicky haste. Instead of editing
comments and then deleting them, I think a better approach would have
been to send them back to the originator politely asking the author to
rephrase things to preserve her pseudonymity.

Neither can I. I can see how someone who has difficulty with dual
perspective might make an honest mistake, though.

I think perhaps the word you are looking for is "deception."

In a bit of synchronicity, we are having a similar issue in the
political sphere up here in Canada:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/politicalsockpuppetry

I said...

and then Bob said...

It's really deception's eviler twin. Is there a word for that? LOL!

Subterfuge?

Eva

That involves all manner of creating guilt by association and shooting down
of ASAN. It is all counter productive.

I am most sorry to see the argument taken here.

--
�T

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"

That may be. However, I am not one of those people, and that is not my
agenda.

I will hold those who would represent me as an autistic to the same high
standards I hold those who represent me as a taxpayer or as a voter or
as a professional etc.

I chose to bring this discussion here specifically because usenet is not
amenable to censorship (self-censorship or otherwise) and because the
ethical behaviour of those who advocate for autistics is of paramount
importance to me.

>
> Subterfuge?

Perhaps...

I'll admit my ignorance. I don't know what you are talking about.

So my response was in no way politically motivated. But I still find
the behavior to be deceptive and I have to say that even though the
stakes are not as high for me, I would agree with Bob. I have a
tendency to hold certain people to certain standards (like
professionals, clergy, government officials, etc). I don't think there
is anything wrong with that, especially if they may be representing me
or being entrusted to make decisions on my behalf.

That being said, everyone makes mistakes, and even honest people with
a lot of integrity can do things that are not true to who they are.
You need to be careful to understand the big picture.

I have no idea who Ari Neeman is any more than I know who Sarah Pripas
is.

Quite frankly, I don't care who's side anyone is on - if they are
being manipulative and deceptive, I don't want them representing me.

If there's unethical tactics being used against ASAN, point it out and
if I agree then I will say so - but that doesn't mean that Sarah
Pripas or anyone else is then suddenly allowed to be unethical. As
every five-year-old should know, two wrongs don't make a right.

That is as objectionable as any original misdemeanour.

It is a question of who do you believe, and whose motivations do you trust.

Personally I have a lot of trust in Ari Neeman, and suspicion of some of
those who wish to discredit his organisation, because that can only be of
benefit to others who seek ari's position, those who are no friends to us.

--
şT

"Stephen Horne" <sh006...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r1mar5p1kgvq6aps6...@4ax.com...

Individual representation is always a legislative fiction, no one person in
any large community can accurately represent the beliefs and aspirations of
every single constituent, not in the least because those are likely to be
paradoxical an contradictory. One therfore advocates a community rather than
individuals.

In that advocacy however it should in no wise substitute for the right of
the individual to represent him/herself and any advocacy that tends toward
the acknowlegement of that fact is better than advocacy that rides roughshod
over it making many assumptions. I am aftraid the alternatives do just that,
therefore in a less than ideal, and less than being capable of ideal world I
support the flawed humans of ASAN in preference to any alternative that
currently exists.

--
şT

news:4bb50e70$0$12426$9a56...@news.aliant.net...

I do. And to their shame, they ignore me.

I don't expect my representatives to hold exactly my views on every
issue or even any of my views on any issue. I only expect them to act
ethically.

In that case, why are you whining about it here instead of impressing
upon ASAN the importance of stepping up to address the questions that
have been raised and to correct any deficiencies in their official
policies and codes so that the Senate can get on with the confirmation
secure in the knowledge Ari has no skeletons in his closet that might
come back to bite them later?

Why isn't Ari or anyone else from ASAN here discussing this issue with
us? He periodically spams the newsgroup with announcements so he knows
how to find us.

My only problem with ASAN is the complete lack of response. It
bothered me when the first accusation was made, months ago, and it
bothers me now, with the new issue. Nobody from ASAN has bothered to
go to where these accusations and discussions are being made except
for a couple of people who apparently don't have access to all of the
information they would need in order to make clear just what has
happened.

I still don't know exactly what happened the first time, and while I
believe I understand what happened this time, I'm not sure I'm right
since I really only got round-about information from a few people who
were involved.

I do think that people who are posting supportive information on their
blogs need to disclose their association with whomever/whatever they
are supporting. Just like how, when I post a book review, I note
whether or not the book was sent to me for that purpose. It's about
accountability. I don't care if people keep their real identities
secret; I use pseudonyms here and there, but always in conjunction
with my real name, so I'm not really anonymous. But I do care if they
are a member of an organization they are supporting and don't disclose
that.

She mentioned on a recent blog post that she is taking a break to enjoy
the spring. Does anyone know if she is vacationing away from her
computer? If so, does anyone know when she will return?

I have a couple quick questions for abfh about a comment that appeared
briefly on the "Countering Age of Autism" blog on March 21, 2010 at
8:26pm: http://tinyurl.com/yh4fgyh

The comment, which appeared under abfh's credential, was as follows:

> abfh has left a new comment on the post " Ari Ne'eman Doesn't Divide
> the Autistic Community":
>
> Kim, to the best of my recollection, ASAN has never made any public
> statements regarding facilitated communication. Perhaps you were
> thinking of the Autism National Committee instead?
>
> You can find ASAN's policy positions on health care and therapies
> here.
>
> Meg Evans
>
> Post a comment.
>
> Unsubscribe to comments on this post.
>
> Posted by abfh to Countering Age of Autism at March 21, 2010 8:36 PM

Meg Evans holds the office of Secretary of the Autistic Self Advocacy
Network (ASAN). http://tinyurl.com/asandirectors She also directs an
ASAN chapter in southwestern ohio.

On the same date, March 21, 2010, sometime between 3:39pm and 9:53pm,
Meg Evans sent an email to Kim Wombles, who operates "Countering AoA",
with information about ASAN's position on facilitated communication,
which caused Kim to remove a 3:39pm post she had written with an edited
version at 9:53pm.

The simplest and most direct explanation would be that abfh (autistic
bitch from hell) is a pseudonym Meg Evans uses to operate a blog, and
after posting a comment under the wrong identity and realizing her
mistake, deleted it to email it instead. I believe some people have
already jumped to this conclusion. This is important because abfh wrote
a piece proselytizing Ari Ne'eman and calling for the US Senate to
confirm his appointment to the NCD.
http://tinyurl.com/abfh4ari

This tends to give the same sockpuppet appearance as before.

I already reached out to Meg Evans, and she made it clear she does not
want to discuss this any further. So, please, nobody bother her with any
questions.

While I don't entirely understand Meg's reply, I think she denies using
the pseudonym, which means another person out there operates "Whose
Planet Is It Anyway?" under the abfh credential. I am trying to reach
that other person--not Meg Evans.

Meg did say she was unable to post a comment that day due to technical
problems and emailed it instead. I notice from abfh's wellsphere profile
that she too lives in Ohio:
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/abfh-profile/98219 Perhaps this
influenced whatever technical glitch crossed Meg Evan's failed post with
abfh's credential?

I already tried reaching abfh through her wellsphere profile, but I
received no reply. Wellsphere has some usability issues that might
account for the lack of reply, though, so I wonder if anyone who reads
this knows how to contact her. If anyone does, please have her email me
so I can ask a couple quick and simple questions.

Thank you!

I guess I have my answer: The note on "Countering Age of Autism" showing
that abfh deleted a message posted on March 21 has been removed. At the
moment, one can still see it in the google cache (I don't know for how
long):

http://bit.ly/9tVgmB

from

http://www.google.com/search?q=ne%27eman+site%3Acounteringageofautism.blogspot.com

Very clearly, Meg Evans, the Secretary of the Autistic Self Advocacy
Network, operates the "Whose Planet Is It Anyway?" blog under the name
"abfh" where she proselytizes for Ari Ne'eman, President of the Autistic
Self Advocacy Network, while refusing to disclose that close link as if
she were some less interested 3rd party.

This causes me grave concern regarding the ethics of Ari Ne'eman and the
organization he runs.

I know for instance that employers and universities are with increasing
frequency monitoring the blogs of employees and students with the result
that if they say something the boss does not approve of, they are out of a
job, or if they are a student they face disciplinary consequences.

A certain person very close to the autist has been put under a great deal of
pressure because of something they said about auti$m $qeaks recently, had
that person been anonymous perhaps they would not have been so effectively
silenced when speaking out about a particular incident. It complicates
matter that they were in the pay of a University hosting auti$m $queks

It is actually getting to the point that the advocacy community in being so
split on this issue is becoming as ridiculous as the curebie/mercurian
community who accuse any person speaking against them of being a big Pharma
shill.

It seems now that anyone supporting Ari Neeman in any capacity stands to be
accused of being in the pay, or under the influence of ASAN through
corporate obedience. I happen to be none of those things.

Make no mistake, any autistic who rises to prominence is likely to find a
backlash against orchestrated through whatever means and influences that
there opponents have at there disposal to silence them. We are being
co-opted into there ranks when we find reasons not to support the best
chance we have right now. Get Ari onto the Council, and then complain and
pressure him if he does not deliver, don't leave the gates open for someone
else who is sure not to.

--
şT

news:4bbe40ff$0$12436$9a56...@news.aliant.net...

If one wants to remain pseudonymous, one must not use pseudonymity to
deceive or to give the appearance of deceiving. Meg Evans was given
every opportunity to make appropriate disclosures in the public interest
that would have preserved her pseudonymity. She chose not to.

How is this different from any other period of time? Employers have a
right of free association too.

I don't recall anyone accusing you of being in the pay of anyone.

No.

Once in a position of power and leadership, he will have even less
incentive to clean up ASAN's act. Either he heads an open, honest
organization that represents all autistics or he doesn't. And if he
doesn't want to represent all autistics, I don't see how he is fit to
represent any of us--let alone the entire disabled community.

First he demonstrates competence and honesty then he gets my support.
Not vice versa.

Eva

Are you suggesting that the Office of the President of the United States
of America cannot possibly represent all Americans because some
Americans consider abortion murder and other Americans consider abortion
a woman's right over her own body?

I don't expect my representatives to agree with me on any issue let
alone every issue. I do, however, expect and demand ethical behaviour
from them including that they represent me even if we disagree on any or
every issue.

I was just questioning the phrase "represent all autistics" based on what I
have learned in the past few months about these big debates within and
around the autistic community.

Eva

So choose another issue that gets to the heart of what it means to be
American. Border enforcement, for example.

Do you agree that the President of the United States of America
represents all Americans? Even those who disagree with him on important
issues?

I can't really think of an issue that's that big, that defining. Not since
the Vietnam War ended, anyhow. Or maybe that was just my generation's
issue.
-----------------

-----------------
In one sense, say at the negotiating table with other heads of state, he of
course represents all of us. But in a broader sense, no I don't agree.
Until our current President was elected, I felt for *many* years that
whoever was in the White House didn't represent me.

Eva

Bob,

I note that you state:

So I hope it is understandable to you that I became concerned about my
own ethical behavior when I discovered over 2 years ago that a very
influential person in the autism community was publicly stating on a
discussion board that it was unethical to mention telepathy in
connection with autistics. Even though this influential person was
writing about the then over 15 year-old statement of Professor Anne
Donnellan who was thereafter silent on this subject, I knew I was
still making such statements. Therefore, I asked this influential
person on the same public discussion board why it was unethical to
mention telepathy in connection with autistics. When I did not get an
answer that I understood, I asked for clarification. I will send you
the exact quotes of the messages by private email, but since you made
your statement here on usenet, I felt I should reply in the same
place. I welcome any public comments on what I wrote here from you or
from anyone else since I still do not understand what is unethical
about such statements and it causes me extreme anxiety to this day.

Arthur Golden

The word "ethics" has many different contextual meanings. It would be
unethical for a scientist or evidence-based practitioner to give
telepathy any serious consideration until some objective evidence for
the phenomenon exists. Many researchers have sought such evidence, and
thus far, no such evidence exists.

In the religious or spiritual realm, one is free to believe whatever one
wants.

As a general rule, scientists have no interest in discussing religion,
and it is a mistake to try to engage them at that level.

I will watch for your email.

Don't sweat the small stuff. It's all small stuff.

> Bob Badour <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> considered Sun, 18 Apr 2010

> It also depends on the context of the mention.
> Would it be unethical for an influential person to say that non-verbal
> language often looked like telepathy to an autistic?

I would tell the influential person to speak for himself or herself.

If I had received a response from the influential person similar to
yours, I would have been satisfied, but as I will disclose to you by
private email, that was not the response I received over two years
ago.
[snip]

I accept it is "small stuff" to you, but to my son Ben and I, it is
not small stuff at all. It is a matter of utmost importance to us.
We have reason to believe that the researcher did not pursue such
research because she was threatened in having her career destroyed.
In fact, all of the "little people" who were experiencing telepathy,
who provided the direct services to the autistics, were literally
hunted down and fired from their jobs by the summer of 1993. The most
prominent parent involved, Ms. Kristi Jorde, founder of the Adriana
Foundation, fled Massachusetts to go out west and seems to still be
underground, although she was found recently as a real estate agent on
the west coast of Florida. Please note that my own son Ben kept his
abilities hidden until April, 1994 (after the witchhunt was over) and
soon thereafter was able to flee Massachusetts for the safety of the
Chareidi Community in Israel.

If the scientific community disregards telepathy, what exactly is the
impact to you and your son? What difference will it make in your lives 5
or 10 years from now?

That's possible. All evidence thus far suggests telepathy doesn't exist.
To overcome that body of evidence, the evidence for telepathy would have
to be quite remarkable. If a scientist gave much credence to the idea of
telepathy without that remarkable evidence, the scientist's reputation
as a scientist would suffer.

I think what you experience is more easily and readily explained to
third parties by the psychomotor response, which is well-known and
documented etc. Just about anybody can perform simple experiments to
demonstrate the psychomotor response.

Until telepathy becomes measurable to third parties, it is not part of
any objective reality--as subjectively real as it may be to you and to
your son. Since everybody's subjective reality is different, I fail to
see what harm would come of that.

In the religious or spiritual realm, one is free to believe whatever one
wishes. If your religious community accepts you and your son, I think
that's terrific.

I just reread your original post to this thread "politics and autism"
and I feel it is my ethical duty to bring to your attention the
"unpleasant truth" that I question whether your presentation of the
facts was even-handed. Therefore I have decided to repost my own
comments to this thread and your replies to a new thread with the
subject "ethics and autism." Then, when I have the time, I intend to
post comments on this subject of "ethics and autism."

However, I am not sure if it is ethical for me to publicly mention to
you the details about why I think you are not even-handed. As you
know, I did send you by private email the discussion board messages
about my own interaction with the mutual party involved in your
original post to this thread. I plan to first discuss these specific
issues of ethics by private email. My public comments here on
alt.support.autism will probably be of a more general nature.

Arthur Golden

I remember this...

"I publicly state that you are unethical, but it would be unethical of
me to justify that statement in public, so I shall keep the
justification private".

You're pretty prone to that particular bullshit, aren't you, Arthur.

As I recall, I mentioned Mr. Golden just recently on this group. As
they say, speak of the devil. I would just like to publicly appologise
for any role I may have played in causing him to return.

For the record, Arthur Golden, I think you're a completely unethical
piece of shit. But it would be unethical of me to justify that view
here. By means of those two sentences, I have of course communicated
to everyone who reads this that there is a justification, while
denying them the opportunity to check its validity - just like you so
often do. But don't worry - I shall communicate my reasoning to you by
means of your son and his mysterious magic powers that can somehow
only be manifest through your interpretation - preferably in front of
a select group of followers and admirers, of course. So at the very
least you can be sure that your completely objective cult members will
be able to assess the facts properly for themselves, based on your
completely unbiassed report of why I think you're an arsehole.

BTW - have you got around to telling your cult that they should
relinquish all their worldly posessions to you yet? Or at least, you
know, some "expenses" - even politicians get to exploit that con,
after all. Getting undeserved respect and fame is one thing, but cash
has benefits too. I'm sure you - errr, I mean Ben, of course - can
think of a rationalisation.

And don't forget the women. No doubt you would be better able to
interpret the wisdom of the Great and Powerful Ben if you were, ahem,
more "relaxed".

I think that is a dangerous view.

When a statement is seen as a moral standpoint, or as defining a
group, so that anyone who dares question it is automatically immoral
and rejecting the group - that environment makes science next to
impossible.

This is particularly the case when theres an opinion-polarising
conflict around the issue. With everyone taking more and more extreme
positions, if only to avoid the risk of being seen as enemy
sympathisers, it is difficult to see the truth - which is that any
black-or-white, all-one-way-or-the-other view is likely to be, at
best, an oversimplification.

I'm all for the brain-wiring, acceptance and accomodation view, and I
don't think a cure will ever be possible - and certainly not for
adults. But there is of course some middle ground - even if most of
what we have now is snake oil, in the future there may be genuinely
beneficial treatments.

Will that stop me being me? Will I not be me if, while not gaining the
full insight from nonverbals, I am at least able to look at peoples
faces and hear peoples voices without a pointless stress response?
Will I not be me if, after a few hours of socializing, it no longer
takes me days to recover? Would I not be me if I were born deaf, but
had my hearing repaired, or if I were born blind, but had my sight
repaired, or I were born quadraplegic, but had my limbs repaired? Does
gaining some new ability mean I am no longer me? If so, do I become a
different person each time I learn some new skill?

As I suspect you have realised from the tone, my answer is "no". There
are aspects of autism that are more a part of me, of course, but lets
face it - even our thinking styles change to some degree due to the
changes in our lives and experiences. Formative experiences can happen
at any time. And there's no reason why experiencing a particular
degree of non-autism for the first time shouldn't be a valid
life-changing experience. If some genuinely substantially beneficial
treatment comes along and it *isn't* a life-changing experience, I'll
be worried - that sounds a lot like a contradiction in terms.

I don't believe in absolute rules - well, except for the exceptions,
of course ;-)

There is no basic right to abuse anonymous communication. Whatever
tools we use to get our message across, it must be done with the
understanding that if we act underhandedly and unethically, it is
perfectly appropriate that we should be outed for it.

When you abuse your freedom, you can hardly complain if you lose your
freedom - for example if you commit crimes, you can hardly complain at
being sent to prison. And we don't cry about the repercussions on the
criminals private lives - they should have thought about that
themselves before committing the crime.

Anonymity is just a special case and, in my view, the principle
*should* be "abuse it and lose it". If only it applied more often.

When I spoke about the "crucial, defining question," I was speaking from my
admittedly very limited observation of the autistic community. A year ago I
didn't even know there *was* an autistic community. From what I have seen
the polarization appears already to have taken place long before I burst
upon the scene in all my sensory-defensive, socially inadequate,
drink-spilling glory. (:^)

Eva

Absolutely true - and what I see as the extreme anti-curebie viewpoint
is at the least understandable for many reasons. It's just that many
of those reasons are basically defensive or retaliatory - a reaction
to the opposite extremes.

The fact that the one group are most definitely wrong doesn't make the
other group automatically right - so, once in a while, I like to throw
a spanner in the works ;-)

Logically, this means that everyone is my enemy. Sounds about right
;-)

[snip]

I do not believe that your memory is accurate and I know my memory is
not always accurate. I have no memory of making the statement you
"quote."

Please post a citation for your alleged "quote." When you fail to do
so, I would suggest you make an appointment with a competent
psychiatrist about your delusions before your condition gets any
worse. I do know there is effective medication to help a person in
your current condition, unless it is already much worse than I
assume. I pray for your sake that it is not really worse than I
assume.

However, my position has always been, contrary to your alleged
"quote," that when I have something negative to state about a person
that goes beyond a direct response to what the person wrote, that I
try to discuss the matter by private email first. Bob Badour and I
are currently engaged in a private email discussion. I may have
misunderstood his statements posted here and I wish to ascertain by
private email that I properly understand him before I make any further
public statements.

Meanwhile, you are welcome to come to Jerusalem and check out the
truth for yourself. You will find the factual truth to be very
different than your very fertile imagination. Here in Israel we have
the largest per capita news media in the world and such goings on as
you allege would have come to the attention of our news media and
already been reported to the world. If you cannot come here in
person, you are welcome to waste your time in a Google search looking
for your thoughts about me. Unfortunately, such things really do
happen, but not involving me.

By the way, I missed your recent mention of me. Do you want to
provide me more specific information?

Arthur Golden

-alice

Misrepresenting it as a literal word-for-word quote when you know that
obviously wasn't the intent, and that I am ridiculing your behaviour
and style, not your precise wording. Yes, I remember those childish
wordgames too.

There's a simple answer here. You know what I think of you. Since you
are going to continue being you, best thing is you just go in my
killfile.

Please remember that as is true of many autistics, I take things
literally and it never crossed my mind (autistics also have theory of
mind issues) that you did not mean it as an exact quote. Thank you
for clarifying a point that was outside of my mindset as an autistic.
As an autistic, I never play any childish wordgames even if you,
whatever your neurological witing might be, do engage in such childish
wordgames. Also, as an autistic, I never intentionally try to
ridicule another person's behavior and style. If I ever sound like I
am ridiculing anyone (which some other people have told me at times),
it is because of being autistic and never intentional. Gee, it is so
much easier to explain myself in terms of being an autistic, as my son
Ben wrote about me in 1997.

Actually, I do take your comments seriously and I do not doubt your
sincerity even if your assumptions about me are entirely factually
incorrect. Over the past 13 years I have been on the internet (going
back to bit.listserv.autism in 1997 before alt.support.autism started
in 1998) I have tried to improve. I was definitely overzealous on
bit.listserv.autism (as constructively criticized by Mike Stanton in
1997) and I think I have improved. I also think I have improved since
I last posted regularly to alt.support.autism in early 2004.

On the other hand, so far you seem to be the same. I pray you are not
getting worse, as I am very concerned with "Person C" (a reference
intended to be understood by Bob Badour). Meanwhile, I am currently
involved in trying to help a group of autistics here in Israel and
your comments will be taken very seriously by me in deciding how I
should proceed. So, even though your comments were not exactly
positive, I do appreciate them.

My offer to communicate with you by private email still stands if you
wish to contact me at golden...@gmail.com (noting that my old
email of gol...@shani.net is now defunct). However, I think you
explained yourself clearly enough in this usenet message so I will
understand if you decide to not send me a private email. I also
understand that I might actually be in your killfile (I have never
actually done that to anyone) but this message is primarily intended
for the record for others so I am writing it even if you will never
actually read it.

Arthur Golden

Those are adequate ground for a concerned and politically active individual
to wish not to be outed, as there is real risk there. That is not abusing
freedom, that is protecting your rights against and over zealous corporate
censorship.

The reason I am anonymous here, is because I made a vow long ago, not to use
my name here any more at a particular time when this list was well trolled
out, I just didn't want that exposure any more.

I also have this difficulty because I am a relatively public figure due to
my connections with a certain autistic society and usenet is a very
unregulated and unsafe space when it comes to the sort of people it
attracts, as can be seen in any perusal of the posts here.

Of course the case in question is not to do with usenet, but the
blogosphere, but I don't know the concerned individuals original reasons for
anonymity nor did I know the ASAN connection at the time, but I am willing
to give the benefit of the doubt in that case, regarding the original need
for anonymity.

--
ţT

"Stephen Horne" <sh006...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhcss5lhjan9ajo7f...@4ax.com...

No, I don't.

Quite right - until that freedom is abused. I don't know much about
what happened, but what Bob described was an abuse of anonymity.

Yes, the person had a reason to want to be anonymous. I have no
problem with the anonymous blogging. But the issue here is whether the
anonymous blog was used ethically or not - and assuming that what has
been said here by Bob is factually correct, I say not. The anonymity
was abused.

AFAIK you have never abused your anonymity here.

Again, I never claimed that anonymity is universally bad. I stated
that if you abuse it, you should lose it.

Where isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not there was an abuse.

The benefit of the doubt makes sense, so long as there is a doubt. In
this case I don't know - I generally trust Bob not to misrepresent
these things, but I still wouldn't out anyone based purely on Bobs or
anyone elses say-so.

But the benefit of the doubt is a two-edge sword. Just because you
give the accused the benefit of the doubt, doesn't mean that the
accuser is automatically in the wrong. The accuser may know more than
you do. S/he also deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If Fred tries to stab Barney, the logical thing is to take away Freds
knife. It doesn't matter whether Fred happens to be a chef - he
shouldn't have abused the knife in the first place. But that doesn't
mean all chefs should panic - so long as they don't go around trying
to stab people, they have nothing to worry about.

Would you say "Fred should be allowed to keep his knife and stab
Barney as many times as he likes, because there are people who have
genuine reasons to need a knife"? - of course not!

You are anonymous - but AFAIK you are not abusing that anonymity. What
are you worrying about?

As for my actions - all I did was answer a question "in principle",
while making it clear that I don't know about the people or incidents
involved.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/04/20100430a.html

One could hope they will cancel each other out, but I suspect we will
just get both agendas foisted upon us.

Regardless, I don't expect either of them to respect autistics or to
listen to any of us.

i looked at the site briefly - looks like the same old bureaucratic BS to me.

[snip]

Bob,

I look forward to receiving your private email replying to my 3
private emails to you, as you emailed me a full week ago that you
would do when you have the time.

Then, I will comment on your most recent message to this thread, which
is relevant to my private emails to you.

Art