Kim S. has a new post on over at AoA on how they took on the squatter at Twitter and wrested their name back. That would be fine, if her need to be pissy didn't come out with her need to label those who disagree with AoA's finest the "neurodiversity circus."
And it just gets better:
"I blocked "the clown" immediately, thanks. God, that Chew woman is lame! You're a mother, now grow up and get a life, b----!"
Posted by: Julie June 22, 2009 at 09:56 PM
You know your opposition isn't particularly full of intellectual heavies when they are reduced to terming anyone who disagrees with them a circus (wow, and you know now that I think about that, freaks are in circuses, could they be more offensive?) and lame. I mean, lame, and then the b.... word? Bingo? Is that what Julie meant? What the hell, I'll go ask.
Here's the comment we know won't get on (double dog dare you, Kim S!):
Did you mean to call anyone who doesn't adhere to the AoA philosophy of cure whatever the cost freaks? Isn't that what you are suggesting by terming the neurodiversity movement a circus? What a lovely sentiment and proof that this how you view children and people with autism who aren't suitably shamed of who they are and full of self-hatred.
And seriously, lame, Julie? What was lame was your little b--- word stunt. Have the balls and be a grown up and call someone bingo if that's how you feel.
If AoA is a non-profit entity and Tanners Dad claims, then where exactly is your non profit tax ID number? Shouldn't it be posted?
And the fun keeps on coming. Craig's post over there is well worth the read, but I'll focus on the last bit: "They are the most pathetic excuses for human beings that I have ever had the displeasure of knowing." Awww. Can I just say, it's terribly tempting to tell you to go frak yourself? It really is. I won't though.
Now, to answer some of Craig's arguments:
AoA is NOT interested in an open exchange of ideas nor in anyway supporting parents of children on the spectrum who do not hold to the party line they have created. Pro-science people (and dude, not anonymous, but AoA won't post my responses) read AoA because it is on the forefront for putting out misinformation on autism, on treatments, on the way the autism community sees itself. Nor do I see them as particularly open for answers on how to help their children.
If you were attacking the science with substance, that would fine. I have yet to see the substance. Handley certainly doesn't offer substantive, valid criticism of the science.
As to whether I get upset when I read AoA. Hmmm. Irritated. Determined to stand against the bullshit. Upset. Not so much. Y'all seem to have a monopoly on the victimhood.
Of course, I'm just a little gnat flitting about AoA, so I'm sure Craig was not referring to me at all. :-)