Autism will bankrupt you.

Post Reply New Topic

Please explain to me how this isn't sulking.
It looks like people are trying to understand despite difficulty doing so, and you are mocking them.
If this is replied to with "I don't understand" I will presume that I am correct.

Each of us have been socked, mocked and misunderstood. My attempt was to show you and others how it felt like to be me for a moment as the author of the topic when how I think was made inferior, defective and not good enough to communicate with you and others. Mockery? How about a little example justice.

Where in my post does it say "You, Nathan Young, are like a god judge?".
You seemed to be saying that the fault in understanding lay more on my side. I disagreed.
It is confusing when people read things into my posts that are not there.

For the most part, I haven't seen people mocking you, or saying that you are inferior and not good enough to communicate with us. It is just people saying "I don't understand you".
On other topics, I have seen people suggest that you are on drugs, and I agree that that is mockery and wrong.
However, "I cannot follow your logic" is not mockery, it is a request to perhaps rephrase things or show how the things you say follow from one another.
I cannot speak for others on this thread, but if I thought you were inferior and not worth communicating with, I wouldn't have bothered trying to understand or asking for clarification of things.

It would be like god to judge you inferior by me because you don't understand.

I purposely derailed the topic after my disability of grammar problems was used as an excuse for others. I'm not supposed to take it personally. I still don't take it personally in result. Yet to make a point of my feelings at first I had to make others feel as I did.

This is educational. Like Anger Management the movie maybe and someone being serious in conclusion.

Illiteracy + tin foil fat wearing = one jacked up thread

Yes I was sure of it to result like this..

Re: the bolded sentence: thank you, I understand now. But what did you mean when you said "That's because it has more then to do with your mind".

Why do you assume that your grammar was used as an excuse? It seems as though you assume that the lack of understanding from people is wilful, rather than simply something that arises from the interaction between your words and their brains.

The fact that you were frustrated/hurt/angry or whatever you felt does not mean that others were setting out to make you feel that way.

Just for the record, it was suggested that I ought to apply marijuana to my posts.. I did not follow this suggestion but I am still just as confusing as if I were stoned.

Oh well, I'll continue trying. No mockery intended.

*edit* was trying to correct an error in a previous post, accidentally quoted it instead. Forum will not let me delete.

Last edited by Who_Am_I on 02 Feb 2011, 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why do you assume that your grammar was used as an excuse? It seems as though you assume that the lack of understanding from people is wilful, rather than simply something that arises from the interaction between your words and their brains.

Some people wanted to use my grammar problem as an excuse for not understanding. You are not expected to understand them in why they did it.

Did they say outright "because of your grammar, I will not try to understand", or did they say that they had trouble understanding due to your grammar?
The first instance would seem to be more clearly an excuse; the second requires more assumptions to turn it into an excuse rather than a genuine lack of understanding.

Frankly Chi I haven't had a chance to read through more than 800 posts of you but judging by this thread I've drawn a few conclusions. You seem like an intelligent individual and while I'm no genius I'm not stupid either my IQ is in the low 130s. I can understand the gist of what you post but its like trying to read a foreign language. Not in regards to your words but in regards to your sentence structure and thought processes. Mine mirror yours to a limited degree I think but you seem to take a positive delight in masking simple ideas and concepts in complex non-linear language and thought. Maybe its how you really think maybe your just having fun. Either way if your doing the rough equivalent of slurring your every third word in a rl conversation, in that situation it doesn't matter if your speaking Shakspeare or gutter slur no one will pay you any mind.

No the pooh language is for humor, the stereotypes for humor and the intellectual speak with interaction is to derive conclusions for social problems. My IQ seems to go up and down. The more I think for myself the more it goes up and the more I let others think for me the more I feel dumb. IQ is just a number. Here in this post it ended up being about thinking styles, inferiority meets superiority, other posts in which others have continued to talk about my mixed expressive language and grammar disorder and so on and as well as mainstream ideology. In conclusion the rules in future posts will be to make the topic about a specific topic with a specific structure of interaction as if a model to reply with. Otherwise it gets to very complicated.

The original question had to do with how one perceives autism and themselves and a commonly disputed phrase and or idea related to the label and the identity. I am not going to make conclusive statements but begin with another subject.

I will fully outline the perceptual theory to begin with based on common or trend based emotional reactions.

Here is another example of where agreed upon language can ease understanding. I have read this sentence ten times and I cannot find a subject nor an object.

I parsed it this way:




Pooh language = bathroom humor

the stereotypes for humor = stereotypical labels are for humorous effect

intellectual speak with interaction = conversation happening at an abstract level about subjects deemed meaningful

is to derive conclusions for social problems = the purpose of the "intellectual speak".

So the subject is CJ's use of language across several modalities. Placing a comma after "no" and another after "the stereotypes for humor" cleans it up.

What is frustrating is that to understand this, one must work really hard. I have yet to determine if CJ is working equally hard at expressing himself clearly or expects us to take what he says and deal with it. Being accused of not trying hard enough makes me think the latter, but knowing the thought structure of an autistic mind does not map cleanly to the syntactical structures of language derived from overwhelmingly neurotypical communication needs, I also think we are experiencing some translation difficulties.