UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

In article , Nan says...

On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

Nan

One of whom is also extremely abusive sometimes.

I mean, are we (or you on a.m.) to be masochists putting up with insults and
abuse with no comment or complaint in order to be 'welcoming'? Or continually
put up with a long trail of odd disruptions related to cross-posting and
inviting cross-posting about unpleasant situations and disruptive topics? In my
observation, just saying "stop that, please" is viewed to be 'unwelcoming'.
Well, what to do?

I think it's telling that the "multiple people" is pretty much limited to a very
small number who have been very disruptive and/or nasty (although I don't know
what the thing was with Stephanie - I think it was?, there is one person here
whom I regard as perfectly reasonable who posted about not feeling welcome that
puzzled me, and Dorothy as well, and it all seemed very long ago and vague ...)

Banty

On 8 Feb 2006 06:40:48 -0800, "Barbara" wrote:

But even if you say that a lot of the kids now diagnosed with autistic
spectrum disorders would previously just have been considered to be a
little *different,* there still seem to be a heckuva lot more of them
than when I was a kid, and I'd like to know why.

One thing about this is that more of them are out and about in the
community. As late as the 80s, parents were advised that these
children would never live on their own and should be
institutionalized. I don't know how many parents took the advice
ot the doctors, but you can bet that less of them do so now. The
fact that treatments have improved and group homes are available
means we see them more often too.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 8 Feb 2006 06:40:48 -0800, "Barbara" wrote:

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

I simply don't know why autism is continuing to increase. I have
a strong hunch it's because of something human beings are doing.

Um, diagnosing it? Remember that Asperger's paper on his now-eponymous
syndrome was published in 1946 or so, but only translated into English and
republished in the 1990s. Suddenly a whole group of people who didn't fit the
classical profile of autism could be included on the autism spectrum.
Diagnosis has tightened up enormously. Remember it was only 1887 when
Kraepelin noticed that there were a few different types of nutcases in his
asylum -- the patients would have included intellectually as well as mentally
disabled people. Categories that we take for granted are remarkably recent
constructs, and, as with the autism spectrum, still developing.

That's almost certainly a major reason for the huge proliferation in
diagnoses of autism and learning disabilities these days, but I doubt
that its all of it.

Taking a step away from autism, my son has Auditory Processing
Disorder, word retrieval issues, and some other misc. learning
differences that probably didn't have a name as recently as 20 years
ago. We've discussed the question of what would they have done with
One back in those days. My opinion? They would have told us he just
wasn't very bright (although he actually probably has a near-genius IQ
if you only look at tests not affected by his disabilities).

But even if you say that a lot of the kids now diagnosed with autistic
spectrum disorders would previously just have been considered to be a
little *different,* there still seem to be a heckuva lot more of them
than when I was a kid, and I'd like to know why.

Another thought too. Autistics used to be confined and not have
children. That too has changed. More autistics are having children
of their own who are on the spectrum.


Barbara

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

Nan

Thanks! You are such a peach.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Nan says...

On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

Nan

One of whom is also extremely abusive sometimes.

I mean, are we (or you on a.m.) to be masochists putting up with insults
and
abuse with no comment or complaint in order to be 'welcoming'? Or
continually
put up with a long trail of odd disruptions related to cross-posting and
inviting cross-posting about unpleasant situations and disruptive topics?
In my
observation, just saying "stop that, please" is viewed to be
'unwelcoming'.
Well, what to do?

I think it's telling that the "multiple people" is pretty much limited to
a very
small number who have been very disruptive and/or nasty (although I don't
know
what the thing was with Stephanie - I think it was?,


I don't even remember. All I remember was lurking a bit, posting, getting
told pretty much that I was a jerk and kind of dumb or some such. So I left.
I mean it *is* usenet. There is not reason that any single group needs to be
the way I want it to be.

I'm surprised, though, to learn that I'm a person that most people would
find off putting. (Not you, Nan.)

there is one person here
whom I regard as perfectly reasonable who posted about not feeling welcome
that
puzzled me, and Dorothy as well, and it all seemed very long ago and vague
...)

Banty

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:22:17 GMT, "Stephanie"
wrote:

I'm surprised, though, to learn that I'm a person that most people would
find off putting. (Not you, Nan.)

No, I wasn't referring to you as one of the off-putting types.

Nan

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:20:30 GMT, "Stephanie"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

Nan

Thanks! You are such a peach.

I wasn't considering you in that. Lyn brought up another person who
complained about a.m. as "evidence" that a.m. is an exclusionary group
and one in which everyone must engage in groupthink. The person she
brought up was abusive and rude to a.m. posters, so I wouldn't say
she's the type most people would want to befriend.

Sorry for making you think I meant you.

Nan

On 9 Feb 2006 07:56:57 -0800, Banty wrote:

One of whom is also extremely abusive sometimes.

I mean, are we (or you on a.m.) to be masochists putting up with insults and
abuse with no comment or complaint in order to be 'welcoming'? Or continually
put up with a long trail of odd disruptions related to cross-posting and
inviting cross-posting about unpleasant situations and disruptive topics? In my
observation, just saying "stop that, please" is viewed to be 'unwelcoming'.
Well, what to do?

That's just it. If anyone is called to the carpet for their
abusiveness to anyone we consider a friend, we're a "clique" (gawd I
hate that word).
I have to assume that people are pretty much the same in real life, as
they are on usenet. If I meet someone that behaves the way certain
other people on here act, in real life, I'm not going to like them
irl, either.

I think it's telling that the "multiple people" is pretty much limited to a very
small number who have been very disruptive and/or nasty (although I don't know
what the thing was with Stephanie - I think it was?, there is one person here
whom I regard as perfectly reasonable who posted about not feeling welcome that
puzzled me, and Dorothy as well, and it all seemed very long ago and vague ...)

Nan

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:20:30 GMT, "Stephanie"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
. ..
On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

Nan

Thanks! You are such a peach.

I wasn't considering you in that. Lyn brought up another person who
complained about a.m. as "evidence" that a.m. is an exclusionary group
and one in which everyone must engage in groupthink. The person she
brought up was abusive and rude to a.m. posters, so I wouldn't say
she's the type most people would want to befriend.

Sorry for making you think I meant you.

Nan


Oh sorry. I thought I was one of the aforementioned 3.

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...
"Circe" ) writes:
I'm just not sure what your point (or Catherine's or Stephanie's) is
here.
Is there some requirement that EVERY person who subs a particular
newsgroup
must find it to her taste and interests?

I was talking about misc.kids. I wasn't talking about whether
the group was to my tastes and interests. I was talking about
whether people posted replies to my posts containing remarks
likely to make me feel bad: harsh criticism or insults or
name-calling or taboo words or personal remarks etc. (I'm not
claiming that all of these have happened to me on this newsgroup.)
My point was that my experience could be taken as providing
support for some point someone else was making that
misc.kids can be unfriendly to some people in a
patterned way involving newcomers and/or people seen
as outsiders. It's not strong evidence, just my
subjective experience vaguely remembered.

Hmmm, I think of you as a well-liked and well-respected regular poster to
this group. Occasionally, you post ideas that some people feel wouldn't work
IRL for a variety of reasons and they say so, but I've never gotten the
impression that there's any concerted effort on the part of a large
contingent of other regular posters to be unfriendly or unkind to you.
--
Be well, Barbara