They took down the Autism Speaks Interview on AFF!

Post Reply New Topic

First, there has been no evidence whatsoever that he has wanted to shock and offend anyone. he posted an interiview he made with a person from autsim speaks. That would only shock and offend someone who doesn't think that listening to the other side is important: bigots.
Second, he was constantly saying that he doesn't know why people are pushing him around, or his sister. The only way to logically conclude that he was trying to stir up something would be if you wanted to believe that he was somehow guilty of something (despite the evidence)

...one thing you can be sure of is that, after this, unless they find a passing use for him, "Autism Speaks" won't touch him with a bargepole...

I can't believe this... People are just saying all these things about Tambourine and not providing any proof...

this post is not to be responded to any longer.i can get a real moderator to physicaly lock it if needed.

I'm very confused. Everyone is saying how bad it was for AFF to lock their thread, now you want to lock this one too? btw, I don't think AFF locking their thread was sinister, if you read it all the way through, you will see things got really heated at the end of the thread. I think it's what needed to be done at that point.

Enough of this mechanima. Don't accuse me of playing both sides when you are devoting massive amounts of energy into visciously attacking me on AFF under one name and pretending you have an ounce of civility over here.

Hey hey, where's the proof that she's mechanima?

That's how people interact. If you don't want to use and be used, avoid people entirely. (Maybe it's just nonautistic people but that's not the point I'm making.)

T-M and Autism Speaks were using each other, and anyone smart would have got onboard. That's human interaction.

You can't really weigh an individual against an organisation when it comes to mutual using though. Organisations most of the time tend to overpower the individual, just saying.

See Marcia's post on the "I am conducting an interview with AutSpeaks" thread. She's the one that figured it out.

I have seen it. Reporting proof isn't proof. I want to see the links.

I'm assuming Marcia has them. It's up to her to provide them, if she she so desires. And that's cool, it is a reasonable point of view on your part. I believe her, but I know who she is from AFF, and that she is someone who would never tell an untruth. But I don't expect you to believe it for that reason.

I do think that the introduction to the interview should have at least mentioned Robison's past and presumably present affiliation with Autism Speaks, e.g.:

Autism Speaks Appoints John Elder Robison to Scientific Advisory Board (link)

Robison's entries on AS's "Official Blog (link) (his last entry is just over a month ago)

Or, better still, not mentioned his name at all. The interview still would have been what it was without citing him. As it was, throwing his name out in the introduction to the interview made me personally take him as some sort of impartial party, and that the observation quoted should be taken as at least a partial justification for the interview that followed. It wasn't until a bit later that I had a "hold the phone" moment, with a vague sense I'd seen Robison's name somehow coupled with AS. And it most certainly is, as I think the above shows.

I'm assuming there was no intent to mislead anyone, in the sense that the author probably presumed a level of knowledge of the ins and outs of ASD organizational politics that a lot of folks around here do in fact have. As in, thinking that Robison's involvement with AS was common knowledge and that as such it didn't need to be mentioned.

But then there are the people like me, who swing by this site every few days, maybe read some books on the topic, but really just don't know who does what where, aren't really all that interested in telling the players via an up to date scorecard, etc. This must also be a fairly large group, and I submit one quite likely to do two things. First, presume an impartiality re: Robison in this matter that is incorrect. And, second, either scratch their heads in confusion over the whole fuss or interpret some of the criticism sent his way as wildly off the mark and unfair. (FWIW, quite frankly, I'm rather surprised my porous memory actually did manage to hold onto a detail like the one that sent me in search of the links. Had I not remembered it, I'd very likely have fallen into both errors I mention.)




This is actually a good example of the sort of thing I'm getting at. I honestly know beans about AFF, and haven't the foggiest idea if your description is on the mark or not. I suspect (hope?) that each member of AFF would decide for themselves whether to get "within 50 feet" of Robison or not, but to pin such a descriptive on an entire group makes them sound like the Stalinists of ASD: be ideologically pure or be an "enemy of the people."

==============

As to the actual interview, I'm going to reserve judgment at present...barring Question ( 8 ). The way that one was phrased rankles. It was asked as both a platitude and a hypothetical, and was answered as such.

Personally, I'd have asked:

• "Do you consider the compensation packages of the upper management of Autism Speaks, past and present, to be reasonable and fair?
• Would you consider including the figures related to the compensation of your upper management in your fund-raising appeals? Assuming such figures were included do you think they would help or hinder these efforts?
• Are there any groups from which Autism Speaks would not knowingly accept donations? Note that I don't expect any specific names (today's legal climate being what it is), simply what might constitute a conflict of interest, or a position held by any particular entity (governmental, charitable or for-profit business) that would render Autism Speaks unwilling to be associated with them in any way.

Okay, maybe the second question is a bit on the bratty side, but it would still be interesting to see what they'd say.

Last edited by WorldsEdge on 25 Sep 2011, 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, my girlfriend was banned for politely letting people know that I was not on a "lethal drug combo."

As many of you know, there is something mighty fishy going on over and, to a lesser extent, over here as well.

Oh well, I've already emailed Alex the first installment in my featured column here. It is a fun, encouraging and humorous piece, entitled, "Geek Chic: Owning my Asperger's." I haven't heard back from Alex, but it he suggested he would like to get it up pretty soon.

I can't say enough how surprised I am by the civility over here.

For days a crew thugs (many of them doubtlessly sock puppets) were allowed to do everything they could to tear my name apart.

My girlfriend kept contacting moderators to get it to stop, so they banned her.


I'm not sure there is anything left to salvage over there.

A followup interview by TM where he asked, in his very friendly and open style, some of the more uncomfortable questions would be fabulous. Once you have a cordial relationship with someone it's MUCH harder for them to evade questions. But you need the cordial relationship first. A lot of people seem not to have realised this.

There are a lot of cool people there but the owners and mods are pretty fascistic about enforcing The One True Way.

This is apparent...

They told my girlfriend that everyone who participated in the conversation about my meds (in which she was merely clarifying the truth) was banned, but Grey area is on there right now.

It seems a little financial contribution can allow you to get away with murder over there.