Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe you should stop playing the same tune. I've seen these all-in-bold statements a few times now. So you gonna actually respond to me or try and play some game of 'it's overdone'?

It's not, you skipped the part where I asked the question as quoted below from that post:



Beyond that, after looking at the new epidemic thread, it appears that at least here, some are no longer seeing Autism Speaks, in the same negative light as they did before, in part because of Tambourine Man's efforts, and the willingness of the organization to accommodate at least some needed change when directly asked by some individuals in the autistic community, as it exists now.

Can we please rename this the "hyperbolic, black and white thinking, part and parcel, and above all PERSEVERATION" thread!!???

And difficulties in abstract reasoning.

Ugh, read what I say please. This is embarassing. I did say figurative for part and parcel but also metaphorical

I was agreeing with you before you even made that statement? I said there is no metaphorical interpretation of part and parcel which doesn't mean integral in a literal sense. I was agreeing with you about part and parcel being metaphorical. It's amazing. Why all this hot air?


I didn't say this, I said that part and parcel was metaphorical for the literal meaning of integral or unavoidable. Do you see the gap in the underline between part and parcel and literal?
Furthermore, The example is made the same way as my definition. So if you agree with the definition but disagree with the example you are contradiciting yourself.
And now you're just just doing an argumentum ad infinitum and are misquoting me too. Don't act like a teacher when you have no clue what another is saying.

Now for proof that aghogday tells my grandma to suck eggs!


Yet I already say above:



Oh this is going to be fun.


Excellent, now it's obvious that you can't read because when I talk about part and parcel being metahorical for integral, which is then taken as a literal meaning you show that you can't undersatand that I never said part and parcel was literal. Damn.


Which is fortunate because they mean exactly what I want them to mean still. It shows that you still haven't escaped the fact that your defence of Tambourine man was on false terms. I

t still proves the fact that when tambourine says part and parcel he said that black and white thinking was unvaoidably a part of, intimately connected to, integral to, an unavoidable part of and any other words to that effect for or to autism, which is a sham.

This last argument is just word spinning. Give me a break Aghogday.



As for your link to another post:


Only because you say so.
Let's take a look:

It makes no reference to AS against, compared to, vis-a-vis HFA. It just says better. I think it then goes on to say how these were closely compared but says in a way that still makes better mean better in general, not better than HFA.
Thus the assumption is that it's telling me that AS people are better at tasks relationg to theory of mind and abstract reasoning in general.

The reasons the paper give for this discrepancy are simply conjecture which sound more like word junk than an actual scientific argument and moreover only prove the point that the paper has no idea what it is talking about when saying the words abstract reasoning.
It's the god of the gaps.

Last edited by Gedrene on 27 Oct 2011, 5:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

:/ Come on.

And then you go on to say that I was wrong in thinking what I did because of the above quote. WHy can't you admit to any wrong that you actually do?


Because you say so. I was always willing to accomodate. But here's a strange thing, there was a thread criticizing autism speaks. Why is it gone from the top?

This is about the only thread you have been commenting on recently and now you say this. You aren't having an inside joke. You did cause the issue to begin with.

I can see now that you weren't disputing the fact that metaphorically is a synomym for figuratively. Thanks for the clarification, I misundertood that aspect of what you were saying.

This is your quote that I was disputing out of your last post, not the one you presented below:



When used as an idiom Part and parcel metaphorically or figuratively means the literal definition of integral along with other meanings like important part of. The phrase Part and parcel literally means nothing other than two words put together with different literal meanings. It sounds to me like you are saying the opposite in the preceding quote.

I don't see a problem with this one that you stated above:

part and parcel was metaphorical for the literal meaning of integral or unavoidable.

I repeated this: "Part and parcel are unrelated words that don't make sense together if taken literally" because it is the literal definition of part and parcel. I could see that you understood that the phrase means nothing more than two words; I was clarifying that this is the literal reading of it. The figurative/metaphorical meaning of the idiom of it is integral, important part of, etc

This statement that you made: (So part and parcel doesn't have anything to do with parts or parcels, but it literally means integral or unavoidable. It doesn't metaphorically mean integral. That is a major english error.) if one reads it literally it sounds like you are saying that part and parcel literally means integral or unavoidable and metaphorically means integral. That's the way I read it.

Now that you presented the other statement that clarifies that part and parcel metaphorically means the literal definition of integral, I think it clarifies the statement I disputed, I read the statement I disputed, literally instead of what it appears you intended by it. So seems a literal dispute over literal.

While an important part of something, may seem like a universal part of something to you, it doesn't necessarily mean that to other people. If I state that cheerleading is an important part of a winning football team, it doesn't mean that all football teams have cheerleaders.

Cheerleading is part and parcel of a winning football team. Maybe for some, but not all football teams have cheerleaders. So as illustrated while cheerleading may be an important part of a winning football team it is not always a part of a winning football team.

This is how it is used in the US. If you use it in the UK a different way that is fine, doesn't mean you are wrong, but it also doesn't mean I am wrong over here if I state cheerleading is part and parcel of a winning football team.

The research I provided comparing HFA autistics to AS autistics, suggests the disorders are relatively indistinguishable on the basis of cognitive measures. Within the results of the research AS individuals occasionally scored higher than HFA individuals on the abstract reasoning and TOM assessment tasks. Here is a quote of the beginning of the paragraph in the article indicating they are comparing Aspergers Syndrome with HFA Autism in regard to the TOM and abstract reasoning testing. You have seen the rest of the quote twice as presented earlier in the thread.

Last edited by aghogday on 27 Oct 2011, 10:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If I make a statement that is incorrect, I don't mind admitting to it. Prove me wrong on something by real evidence, and I will accept it. I have admitted mistakes here many times; If you really want to see them, I will send you PM's of evidence where I have acknowledged and apologized for mistakes here.

I looked at the Epidemic thread and saw the positive comments, it's just my opinion as I observe the situtation. I'm not suggesting your definition of us that you clarified and your opinion about comments you have heard on this site in the past regarding that definition are incorrect, I am suggesting that the situation appears to be changing.

Threads move to the top as they are answered, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about regarding mysterious Autism Speaks threads. I personally haven't noticed anything unusual. Threads are sometimes deleted when they go against the rules here, that is the only time I have noticed anything like that.

Last edited by aghogday on 27 Oct 2011, 10:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That's a self defacing comment I made; I brought up abstract reasoning, so I don't mind taking ownership that it is probably becoming an old topic of information as well, along with the others noted.

Last edited by aghogday on 27 Oct 2011, 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is unfortunate that this thread has deterioated. There is a constructive dialogue going on here though...

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt178479.html


Gedrene, I don't think we have been disagreeing. This is a miscommunication. I did not mean my use of the phrase which need not be named to be interpreted in absolute terms.

I will stand by my claim that many of the discussions on here become longwinded arguments over small details, and are influenced by black and white and tangential thinking and endless perseveration.

This is an autism forum, may we not expect the classic characteristics of autism to creep up and influence our discussions?

That's Autism! Lock, stock and barrel!

I will have two pints, one to sip, and one to watch.

Right, whatever. I have already noted that you're trying to distract already. Ad it's amazing since its you and aghogday who are to blame for making this go on so long. I get it, you are embarassed and want to foget it. No. Do the right thing. You know who this reminds me of? ci. Just a subtle ci telling me constantly to end it whilst not actually ever stopping himself. Even Zeraeph tried this. This is garrulous what you are doing. You take the heat like everyone else the same. You're not special.



I said why it would and you began by trying to change the definition of the word rather than trying to say excuse me or anything.


All of these characteristics you don't prove with examples of anyone here (Ipsum dixit). All of which just sound like insults directed towards me, all of which show how duplicituous you are in just wanting to shove more characteristics on your opponent. Ironic that you constantly complain and complain about it as well. Maybe I am just determined? Doesn't mean you have to arrogantly presume anything about someone's behaviour and not only that but to not justify it, twice.


I didn't know you had a special right to direct ad hominem comments on to this page that instantly sound like you're trying to make an insulting pass at someone. Guess what? You don't. Get a grip.

Last edited by Gedrene on 28 Oct 2011, 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nope.

Seems you can't read. See how the bold and underlined bits match up. See how It doesn't in the italic means it doesn't.


Your comprehension needs brushing up.


And you started it for no reason. Congratulations.


And here we go again.... I am sorry but unless the definition is unavoidable part or integral to then then you're not not talking about part and parcel. Two of the examples I gave were american so don't play some semantics game or game of patriotism.


So basically you find a site that says 'american' on it and you instantly think only you are talking about the 'american' way of saying it. Well, wrong. Even the example that you give shows that you are wrong because:

It confirms the integral point I made. If anything in that case important was misused. You want me to find more examples that confirm only integral or words to that effect?

The fact that this thread hasn't become an all-out flame war really speaks for the tolerance of the members of this forum

Anywhere else I've ever tried to bring up any points about anything at all, I am immediately viciously attacked.