Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

remilia_scarlet wrote:what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

So the racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al, you understand and are ok with, but mocking AS is somehow baffling to you?

Ahtman wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

So the racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al, you understand and are ok with, but mocking AS is somehow baffling to you?

Is bring upset by something suddenly exclusive, he never indicated it was the only thing he did not understand. Taking it as that is the only thing he doesn't get would mean he gets everything else, the entire understanding of the universe except his one failing, I'm sure that was not implied. Does someone need to list all the things they get and don't get every time they want to bring up a topic? He never said the ONE thing I don't get.

Could he not be upset about all these thing, however bringing up them all would be cumbersome and off topic?

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Scarlet's "not getting x" certainly did not imply that to the exclusion of getting everything else.

The proper and untrolly way to read the statement would be.

(while we are on the subject) what I don't get, and cannot stand (while we are discussing Aspergers on a thread titled "Aspergers/Autism thread" not the "racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al,"thread) is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin

Not

what I don't get,(In exclusion to everything else in the universe) and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Scarlet's "not getting x" certainly did not imply that to the exclusion of getting everything else.

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Scarlet's "not getting x" certainly did not imply that to the exclusion of getting everything else.

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

I'm baffled by many things and don't understand them, and things that bother me. of course, ahtman, I wouldn't expect less from you, since you fancy calling me out at every turn. you know what I meant, you know english is a second language for me, and yet you still have to commentate, rather than asking me to explain, and again, I wouldn't expect less from you.

Bloodfever wrote:We'll if we are going to be pedandic about this, you stated "(DLA, where it will be disregarded)" and you stated "or the Local Authority (where it does not generally fulfill Fair Access to Care Criteria.)" therefore you stated it was local authority where it does not generally reward financial aid. You claimed DLA will be disregarded. Also, the DLA was given because he has ADS, nothing else. So no other afflictions, or mental disorders, JUST because he has aspergers, and I don't think me assisting helped achieve DLA in his favour at all, it was him who spoke to the service to set up the aid so for all they knew he was doing it unassisted. But thats a moot point to be honest as you claim to be helping others too but have not had as much sucess. I think you may just be disheartened by this therefore assuming it is not possible.

Or you are just lucky in that your decision making officer is a reasonable person? It must happen in some places. There are always exceptions to every rule, (and they invariably pop up in any thread on any forum where someone makes a statement that they don't quantify and qualify down to the last apostrophe***) and anyone who gets a DLA award based on JUST an Aspergers Diagnosis is fething lucky.

These days anyone who gets a DLA award period is lucky.

And I didn't claim to have had less success in anything, because I'm not helping individuals fill out applications. I work with the people who have done that, and have seen the results of multiple attempts to get help. But I'm not fighting individual battles. I went up a layer or two. I'm helping to create a service which will help them more efficiently despite the budget situation, and the current media penchant for demonising the disabled, and the Government being the Government.

Edit: *** Ahtman's argument parallel to this is a great example of what happens when you don't qualify, quantify and specify.

remilia_scarlet wrote:I'm baffled by many things and don't understand them

And that is fine, and no one has said there is anything wrong.

remilia_scarlet wrote:ahtman, I wouldn't expect less from you, since you fancy calling me out at every turn.

I'm not 'calling you out', whatever that means. Is this some weird victim mentality? It can't just be an generally impersonal comment, it has to be an aggressive act and very personal?

remilia_scarlet wrote:you know what I meant, you know english is a second language for me

I honestly don't think of you enough to remember that. I also didn't make a charge of poor English at all so I'm not sure why you think that my response had to do with ESL.

remilia_scarlet wrote:and yet you still have to commentat, rather than asking me to explain, and again, I wouldn't expect less from you.

I commented because singling out that one aspect of 4chan as a bugaboo is odd to me, when it is filled top to bottom with offensive statements/pictures/ideologies. For all the human degradation that goes on,m to single out that is perplexing to me. It isn't about you specifically (I'm sorry, I guess you need to feel it is) but just the general idea. Anyone could have posted that and I would have had the same response.

Ahtman wrote:
I commented because singling out that one aspect of 4chan as a bugaboo is odd to me, when it is filled top to bottom with offensive statements/pictures/ideologies. For all the human degradation that goes on,m to single out that is perplexing to me. It isn't about you specifically (I'm sorry, I guess you need to feel it is) but just the general idea. Anyone could have posted that and I would have had the same response.

no complaints from me about the chan of 4 being awful. it is everything wrong with the world after all, and I'm glad you weren't calling me out this time. it is, how you say, the bashing of people with aspergers on 4chan is a single peanut in a sea of gak and it's something that disturbs me, along with everything else on there, and it's uncalled for, and it happens, like many other things. I could make a list of all the things I don't understand, but I'd be banned for spamming.

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

True, if we were on the "racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al," Thread and discussing what is wrong with the whole universe. Since we were on a thread called Aspergers/Autism, it's pretty obvious that the statement was about "The Thing that I don't get (about Aspergers/Autism) is x".

Andrew1975 wrote:

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

True, if we were on the "racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al," Thread and discussing what is wrong with the whole universe. Since we were on a thread called Aspergers/Autism, it's pretty obvious that the statement was about "The Thing that I don't get (about Aspergers/Autism) is x".

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

On a thread called "Aspergers/Autism thread". Don't be coy.

So many times in Dakka people use general statements about a threaded topic.

Could you imagine this conversation

"I hate space marines!"

"So the racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al, you understand and are ok with, but you hate Space marines?"

It's just kind of a D move.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

On a thread called "Aspergers/Autism thread". Don't be coy.

I'm not being coy. I am amused that you are getting into a lather becuase you choose to interpret one statement very broadly (by not mentioning the other problems they must have also meant they have other problems) while interpreting mine very narrowly (you can only mean they they can not find other things problematic). You can give yourself whiplash if you keep that kind of thing up.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

On a thread called "Aspergers/Autism thread". Don't be coy.

I'm not being coy. I am amused that you are getting into a lather becuase you choose to interpret one statement very broadly (by not mentioning the other problems they must have also meant they have other problems) while interpreting mine very narrowly (you can only mean they they can not find other things problematic). You can give yourself whiplash if you keep that kind of thing up.

I'm not really in a lather, I just thought it was interesting that you would purposely get into such a horrible flawed semantic argument just to give someone a hard time by basically be a smart alec.