Forum:Asperger's Syndrome is no laughing matter Volume I

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

WARNING! This page contains profuse whining. Proceed with caution.

This article may contain a point of view.

As you read this message, Uncyclopedia editors are hard at work at tracking down the point of view to its hiding place in the mountains of Pakistan. Please see the irrelevant discussion on the talk page.

Avert thine eyes!

This page is extremely offensive and should not be viewed by anyone.
It may be illegal in several countries as well.

This article is likely to be pwnt by True Aspies. I suggest you run like hell or play some Civilization IV before it pwns you too.

The final message from Hrodulf to Slashy/Rewrite/Anon/Idiot(s)/Whatever

I just wanted to comment, I'm proud to be a left wing liberal (left leaning libertarian to be accurate, like I already explained, but let's not split hairs). I'm also proud to live in a country that tolerates different political beliefs and opinions, which you clearly do not.

By the way, a lawsuit brought concerning the muslim cartoons was recently dismissed. Like it or not, I believe I have the right to offend anyone and everything, including Asperger's, and you, because once you make anything unattackable in terms of speech or satire, you interfere with my right to express myself. What if we made it illegal for you to attack liberalism? How would you like to be threatened to be sued for calling me a liberal? What about all the innocent liberals who might stumble across your insensitive political remarks and go on a taxing and welfare rampage? I think you get my point.

You have the right to your opinion. I have the right to mine. We're not changing the site to suit your needs, because you aren't in charge here. In fact, nobody's in charge here. That's one of the reasons I like this place. And if you or someone like you ever got power here, I'd be the first to leave. And you can believe that I'm going to do everything I can to keep that from ever happening to this place.

I know you'll come back with more ranty bullshit in response to this, but this is my final statement. Talking to you is a complete waste of time and I think it's time to forget you exist because you truly are completely worthless to uncyclopedia and if this forum gets any bigger the project might have to buy another server to store all of your idiocy, surely a waste of wikia's money.

So anyway, to paraphrase Hal 9000, Slashy, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good-bye.

--Hrodulf 15:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And now, enjoy the rest of the forum!

Anonymous Slashy, pictured here, thinks that we at Uncyclopedia are making fun of him.

Recently a person who suffers from Asperger Syndrome (hereafter referred to as Anonymous Slashy) had gotten upset over the article and tried to write about it in the talk page and modify the article. Anonymous Slashy claims that the VFD system was not fair with vote stacking and the VFD entry being made fun of and being mocked. That because the VFD was unfairly treated, Anonymous Slashy had to resort to blanking and vandalizing because he/she/it was not taking seriously or respected on the matter. I have been talking with this person on Todd Lyon's talk page and my own. The problem, as Anonymous Slashy puts it is that people who suffer from Asperger Syndrome cannot pick up on social clues about jokes and take things seriously. That there have been some incidents in which a person with AS, after being joked about, went on a shooting rampage(as has also been alleged of people who eat too many sugary foods). That joking about AS makes it hard for local governments to help people with AS or society or culture understand what an AS sufferer might be going through. I want people here to honestly read Asperger Syndrome and see if we should be making fun of mental illnesses and disabilities. He/she claimed it was like making fun of niggers and queers, which of course Uncyclopedia would never do. This person was banned, but seems to have an unlimited number of IP proxies and library access computers to get around the banning, so the problem is not going to go away.

All I ask is for an honest and serious assessment of the Asperger Syndrome article, and if it should be deleted because:

1. It might cause some (maybe a few) AS sufferers to go on a shooting rampage
2. It is unethical and immoral to make fun of the mentally ill and disabled
3. In a way it is a bigoted article
4. We don't really know that much about Asperger Syndrome as it is a new disability
5. It might go against Wikia's policy of defaming certain protected groups

--Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.Jboyler 07:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Should the Asperger Syndrome article be put up for a VFD?

• Yes We need to evaluate if it is offensive and might be harming a group of people that are a minority and suffering from a mental disability --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• We went through this with Tourette's Syndrome. The cure is to make the article funny. Aspergic is not the same as humorless, but the two can coincide as with anyone - David Gerard 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in this case, an AS sufferer is unable to tell if the article is funny or is being offensive to them. Maybe we need some sort of disclaimer on the article saying it is a joke or funny for AS sufferers to clue in on? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are AS sufferers unable to find it funny? I don't know this is a fact at all. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In some cases they are unable to find it funny, the anonymous poster did not find it funny at first. I tried to explain to him/her that it is a joke and is supposed to be funny. I am having a hard time getting him/her to accept it as a joke. He/she still thinks it is bigoted and unfair to AS sufferers. There is even a template on the article saying that it is meant to be offensive, which an AS sufferer might see as a fact, instead of a joke. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized something here, don't you yourself have Aspergers Orion? What's your personal take? Do you get the satire? Do you find it offensive? I don't see how this is actually mean-spirited at all. It's clear the object of satire isn't people suffering from the actual disease, but the actors who are being made fun of. This article isn't "Haha, laugh at this sick person" it's "laugh at this person who isn't sick, but we're pretending is for the purposes of satire." There's a difference. I'm strongly against censorship, so I just can't see a valid reason to delete this article. It's not offensive to me at all. I can't really see how it could be offensive. What's offensive about it?

I mean, just reading the Wikipedia article (admittedly not the perfect source), it says people with Aspergers often have a gift for satire, not, as this person claims, an inability to understand humor. And I quote: "Individuals with AS may use words idiosyncratically, including new coinages and unusual juxtapositions. This can develop into a rare gift for humor (especially puns, wordplay, doggerel and satire). A potential source of humor is the eventual realization that their literal interpretations can be used to amuse others. Some are so proficient at written language as to qualify as hyperlexic." This seems to basically contradict what the person was saying. I'm trying to be reasonable here, but I can't see how this is a big issue. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I do suffer from several mental illnesses and I was once diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome but it was later changed to Schzioaffective Disorder. In my yougher life I was teased a lot, and they could have been jokes that I didn't get and got upset over them. So yes I do feel somewhat where this Anonymous AS sufferer is coming from, and see how it might be offensive to AS sufferers. His/Her concern is that there are advanced cases of AS where they take jokes seriously and take offense and go and do violent acts as a result of the jokes they didn't get. I admit there are some jokes here I don't get, but being Uncyclopedia I know that they are meant as jokes or else this wouldn't be a humor wiki. The AS sufferer who shot 35 random people had an IQ of 60 and was made fun of because of his AS and it set him off, or so I am told. Maybe he wasn't smart enough to get the jokes? There was another example of an Internet forum making fun of an AS sufferer and he asked where to get buckshot to shoot at people who vandalized his puckins(SIC) and they made fun of him and some told him where to buy the buckshoot and he shot a few people as a result. While I admit it is rare for an AS sufferer to go on a shooting rampage, and I am not sure if this article will cause that, we need to at least consider that it might possibly set some AS sufferers off? If I have AS, it is not as bad as those who did the shootings. I am not a violent person, but I did try to commit suicide before due to being harassed and abused in the workplace and over the Internet. Maybe I didn't get the social clues to jokes, or maybe people actually harassed and abused me? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But I think we can agree there is a difference between personally insulting any one person and making a satirical article about an entire group of people. No, I don't honestly think this article can cause anyone harm. Now, this article, in addition to terrible treatment at the hands of other people can cause harm. But that isn't the article's fault. There's a clear distinction between 'making fun of a person' and making an article that makes light of a disorder or a condition. I think. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Try explaning it to this Anonymous person who has posted to Todd Lyon's and my talk pages. He/she seems to think that articles that make fun of AS actually cause people to go on shooting rampages and hurt the cause of AS by local governments not helping AS sufferers because of the jokes. I've tried to reason with him/her, and I tried to tell him/her to post about it on the forum to see what others thought. But he/she thought people would just mock them and make fun of AS some more. Said that I wouldn't even make an attempt at writing about it to see what others though. This person has AS and it is difficult for them to see that this is a funny artcle not to be taken seriously. Like I said this person has been banned and has used IP proxies and library computers to get around the bans and keeps trying to get rid of the article. I am trying to reason with him/her using logic and references on the Internet and from professionals on AS. I felt that making a forum thread about it, might help resolve the issue. The person talked about contacting Wikia, which I said go ahead and do, and see what they think about it. I just want us to be fair with this person and treat them with respect and understanding, because he/she claims to have not gotten any of that from here. Since he/she is a new user without even a registred account, we need to teach him/her the rules here and that VFD is a fair system (he/she claims it is not). I just do not want any violence to come out of this, and this person did make some threats on Todd's talk page and elsewhere, and I am trying to resolve the issues non-violently and without using a court room to do so. Can we show this person that we are peaceful and not really unfair in any way? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that this isn't just an elaborate troll. See, I'm sort of the opposite of Wikipedia. I always assume bad faith. Honestly, if someone is continually vandalizing the website, I can't take their claims seriously. Vandalism is what trolls do, not what serious people with serious concerns do. I see no reason to respect a repeat vandal who won't even make an account and take up this issue himself. What's reasonable about vandalization and vague threats? Nothing. Nothing at all. This person does more of a diservice to Aspergers sufferers than we ever could. That's what this issue demonstates, if anything. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say if this is some troll or a person suffering from mental illnesses so bad that they have an impulse control problem and do not see that what they are doing is wrong. I have to assume it is the later, and that maybe writing a forum post for them will help them see what other people think and maybe find a few AS sufferers to throw in their two cents as well. All I know is that banning them only makes them worse as they can use proxies and library systems to get on here and keep making threats and vandalizing and blanking. I had hoped to reason it out with them lgocially, and then I had an idea to bring it to the forum and hope they communicate in the forum with us. If you view my talk page User talk:Orion Blastar you will see that I tried to argue why the article would not cause someone to go on a shooting rampage and why they could be wrong. It is hard to argue with them and I have tried. So I decided to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and write a forum post on it and see what others thought. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Against. A few reasons here. 1. First and foremost: we're a comedy site. Its all in the name of humor. I'm sure Niggers offends blacks, Emo affects emos, Beaner offends Mexicans, Gay offends gays, etc. etc. etc...This is no different, and all those are allowed. 2. Its actually a funny article. 3. Its by Todd Lyons for christsakes...-- Sir C  Holla | CUN 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orion here. Imagine how you will all feel if someone does kill people because of this article. I'm not saying that it will happen, nor is it probably likely, but what if. The article isn't even funny and is quite offensive. I know offensive is what uncyc is all about, but unfunny isn't. Aaadddaaammm 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some things that come to mind as I read this. 1)A person with an IQ of 60 would not be able to read this forum, use a proxy, or spell Asperger. 2)We have gone through almost this EXACT thing with Tourette's Syndrome, only without the psychophobia that this anonymous IP seems to have (rather strongly). 3)ENeGMA is right: Uncyclopedia is MADE for people with Asperger's, as they often develop a gift of language after years of misunderstanding (I'm no expert, but what Wikipedia says makes sense. If you run into a lingual wall enough times, you'll eventually make a new lingual path.  ;) Throughout history, it's the people who suffer and have to work harder than others but don't give up that become the true artists.) 4)This person talks like a troll, smells like a troll, looks like a troll, and acts like a troll. While it's true that they still might not BE a troll, the odds aren't good. 5)IF this person goes on a shooting rampage because of an article they read on the internet, that wasn't specifically about them, I don't see how removing it is going to stop them, as they OBVIOUSLY aren't thinking any more rationally than your average fundamentalist.--<<>> 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If, and I do mean if, putting this article to a vote will placate the user and make life easier for us, I see no problem with doing it, since there is about 0% chance it will be deleted. However, it looks like there is reason to believe that doing this will not placate the user, since they can just complain about the same things again. The operative concern here should be what is easiest for us, not an excercise in meaningless procedure. This complaining user is a vandal, not a member of our community, and thus has no rights here.

The issue of some person with asperger's syndrome shooting someone is a red herring. Plenty of screwed up kids without asperger's syndrome have done that too. Barring surprising evidence to the contrary, I am unwilling to believe that a satirical article on asperger's syndrome creates a significant risk of violence. In this country we lock up people who are so mentally unstable that a joke will cause them to become homocidal, and Asperger's afflicted people are not locked up. I can only presume that they have just as much sense as the rest of us.

Even if Asperger's syndrome sufferers cannot (fully) understand the humor of the article, I think this would be a moral issue only if the humor of the article relied on this fact. In other words, if the point of the article was to make us laugh by pissing off people who could not realize it was satire because of a mental impairment, I think we'd have a problem. But the article clearly is a mockery of Hollywood celebrities who act like they have a social impairment even though they don't, and are in fact just assholes.

Finally, I see no legal problem with the article. My understanding is that defamation must be against individual(s). In order to be defamation, the statements must also be presented as truth, which the page is clearly not.

And, grr, I took to long writing this and was edit conflicted by half a dozen people.---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asperger's, and I'm not offended in the least. And even if I was, it's not something to delete an article over. Offinsiveness seems more like a reason to KEEP an article, if you ask me. --User:Nintendorulez 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am learning disabled, and have anxiety and depression. I am offended that Uncyclopedia has an article on only one of these and not all of them! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am white, middle-class and mentally and physically healthy. I'm offended that there's nothing for me to get offended by. For shame! -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You two want to be offended? Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica. There's enough there to keep you going until 2010. --Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been to Encylopædia Dramiatica and was very offended, by HOW MUCH IT SUCKS! Now, since you agree with most of us that ED is much more offensive than Uncyclopedia why not harass them instead of us? --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it sucks. They can't maintain a Wiki to save their lives, and can't stand it when they are given the BS right back. They're even more afraid of censors than Hrodulf is and that's saying something! Anonymous Slashy 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems somehow relevant to all of this. --Hrodulf 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Indirectly it might be, but that's only because I know it's there (I already knew about it ages ago). It doesn't come up on Google though unlike the article here which is why I'm not making a proverbial federal case out of it. Anyway, eventually ED will offend the wrong person (and rather sooner than this site would) and it'll get shut down. Anonymous Slashy 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They won't be shut down. As stupid and assinine as I find their humor, there's nothing illegal about it, nor should there be. I don't know where you're from (Cuba? China? Iran?) but in the US, the UK, Canada, Austraila, and most other countries where those of us who edit here come from there is freedom of speech. Not all of these nations may have it enshrined in their constitutions, but they do have a tradition of it. And I think the reason ED sucks is the quality of writing that people submit there to begin with, NOT lack of censorship! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is not enshrined in the constitution of some of those countries means that the law of that country takes precedence. I am only aware of any legal precedence putting freedom of speech first in the US - and it only causes trouble. ED will be shut down eventually - it's just a matter of time. Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You ARE from Portsmouth.....isn't that punishment enough for you? You sick, sick man..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I didn't realise you could be middle class and from Portsmouth, AT THE SAME TIME!! Maybe standards of middle class are lower there... -- Soul101 ~_MA^REPENT! 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Against I just happen to have asperger's syndrome myself, as well as autism and ADD, and I didn't find the article offensive at all. In fact, I thought it was quite hilarious. I understand that the people with aspie's cannot understand when someone is joking, but we seriously do not have to delete the article over this fact. It would be like deleting the article on 9/11 simply because a few uber-patriotic americans were offended by the satirical nature of the content. Therefore, I think deleting the asperger's syndrome article because one person took it too seriously is highly unethical. --General Insineratehymn 20:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You either have Autism OR Aspergers. You can't have it both ways! And anyway, if you aren't offended or can see the offence in the article - you aren't either. ADD maybe, but certainly not Aspergers. And it would NOT be like deleting any 911 article (which in my opinion shouldn't be satirised anyway but that's not for this forum). Anyway, I have said the present form of the article needs to go. The rewrite that Orion suggested below would be an appropriate alternative. You have to understand that if an article is potentially dangerous it has to be removed, fixed, altered, whatever. Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, I've heard that one before. You see, a person is not about to go on a shooting rampag simply by reading an article. If he did, then it is not the article fault, it's the person's fault. The way you are complaining is the same way the PMRC or Jack Thompson complained about things that offended them. They claimed that music and/or video games caused violence in american youths and that it needed to be censored. There are severe holes in their logic, as there is with your own. Frank Zappa wrote a song about dental floss, but did more people take care of their teeth? No. Cannibal Corpse writes songs about cannibalism, but did more individuals go out and started eating others? No. Mortal Kombat contained an unbelievable amount of violence, but did you see more people ripping out eachother's spines? No. This same logic applies with articles on the internet. If a person takes offense from an article and ends up going on a shooting rampage, then there is something severely fucked up with the person, not the article. The ignorance of individuals causes violence, not music, video games, or articles. --General Insineratehymn 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents

As an Aspie, I don't give a shit that the article makes fun of the syndrome. Uncyclopedia is about making fun of everything, right? Like a less vindictive Encyclopedia Dramatica. I'd suggest upping the 'this is nonsense, take it with a grain of salt' factor to avoid future confrontations. --Sara, 10:16pm, October 2006

I hate to be a heartless, selfish bastard, but if we catered to every interest group that was offended by an article, there wouldn't be any content left and we'd have to pack in the whole project. I agree that the cure is to rewrite, not to eliminate. And blanking is vandalism and that is never justified under any circumstances. Although it doesn't qualify anything I've said, I'm also diagnosed AS, but I believe that because of life experience and careful learning, I have overcome most of the practical impacts of that diagnosis. I do feel that the cure for anyone is offended by an article here is either to edit to maintain or improve humor while removing offense, or simply not to browse the site. Uncyclopedia isn't for everyone. It requires a sense of humor, an understanding that not everything you read here is personal to you or should be taken seriously, and not least, the ability to laugh at yourself and your own foibles and faults. Barring that, maybe www.hellokitty.com would be a better internet destination. Unless cats without mouths is offensive to cats. Or possibly, mouths.

All that awful stuff being said, the article sucks and needs a total rewrite; unfortunately my talent is unnews, not articles. I could try but I can't guarantee it will be an improvement. And I'm sorry if my comments have annoyed anyone, but when I come to uncyclopedia, I want to laugh, and if people run around yanking things that I may possibly find funny just because they find them offensive, I'm sorry, but I find that unbelievably selfish and small-minded. It's not all about you, to put it bluntly, and if you're offended by anything here, edit it or bring it up, but don't vandalize and don't censor my comedy. The last thing we need here is the ad hoc equivalent of the Hays code, enforced by the easiest offended, most delicate egos on the internets. --Hrodulf 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should keep the article. I'm aspie and I don't mind. I know it's all in good taste. That's what this Wiki is all about. If you get offended, tough. It's not our goal to offend anyone, but only to be funny. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not our goal to offend everyone? --User:Nintendorulez 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not - that's Encyclopedia Dramatica`s department. --Anonymous Slashy

Mm, I see what you mean. Sorry if I came off as saying "cater to everyone who might be offended". Doing that might save you from backlash, but it'd make the site less fun. I'm all for "don't like, don't read"; reading something just to complain about being offended is pointless. I say do what you think's best with the article. :) --Sara

I'm of the opinion that to give special consideration to certain groups but continue to make fun of all the others is less ethical than making fun of them all. Consider my favourite T-shirt site, www.tshirthell.com. 95% of their hate mail comprises of exactly the same complaint: "I love your t-shirts, but this particular one offends something I like or am close to, that's discrimination, please remove it". The answer is always the same: "removing that would be more discriminating than not removing it". If you're going to go about offending people, the fairest way is to offend everyone.
Everyone has a line they'd rather not see crossed, but it's hypocritical to remove something just because it crossed someone else's line, as it were. There's only one workable way to combat this: have no line. Make the "offence factor" negligible when considering an article for deletion. As long as it's funny, it has to stay. Deciding whether something's funny or not is an entirely different discussion ;) 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My contribution (Voting Yes)

As the person who has been speaking to Orion Blaster I`ll just clarify the issue first.

1. For Orion, the VFD discussion I was referring to was NOT about Aspergers. It was about another subject entirely.

2. There is an insinuation that Aspies have no sense of humour. This is not true. The correct interpretation is that Aspies can not cope with destructive criticism. Mockery is included in this. The article is mocking in it`s nature. --Anonymous Slashy

I get tons of destructive criticism from my peers all the time. I can put up with it, despite deing an aspie. Hell, I not only put up with it, I also don't give a shit about it. --User:Nintendorulez 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not an Aspie, Nin. So don`t claim it. A true Aspie would not have coped unless the wrongdoers were punished. In your case it would appear they weren`t. --Anonymous Slashy

I do have both ADHD and Asperger's, but unlike you I am aware of what the syndrome does to my brain and I take this into account when thinking. I don't let the disease get in my way. What makes you think I would lie about something like this? It did bug me a lot in elementary school, but after a while I just got used to it and learned to not care what others think about me. Don't call me a liar. --User:Nintendorulez 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nin. I am an Aspie, and I understand how you feel, Anony. I feel like that at times. But not all the time. You're just perpetuating stereotypes about us. You're the one causing the trouble, and you're the one offending Aspies, not us. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, Nin. I'll call you a liar - because as far as I'm concerned you are lying. You do not have Aspergers Syndrome. If you did the nonsense wouldn't have stopped at school and you would have noticed it. But you didn't. Why? Because you have the INSTINCT to adjust. An instinct that a genuine Aspie would not have. As for you, Crazy - I'm not perpetuating a stereotype. You are drawing that conclusion from a long bow just to try (and fail) to show an understanding of AS at it's roots. That's the whole point - what it is at it's roots. That's not a stereotype - that's a fact. When we go beyond the roots, that's another story entirely. Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nin, didn't you set the record for "Most destructively criticized Uncyclopedian" at one point?--<<>> 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and I took it like a man. Namely, I fought back and name-called in the same manner --User:Nintendorulez 21:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

3. The reference to the shooting rampage is specific to Martin Bryant. For those who don`t know, Bryant killed 35 innocent people in Port Arthur, Australia, in April 1996. Because he hasn`t been co-operative with the psychiatrists trying to find out why he did it, it has been left to these same psych`s to make some educated guesses. The most accurate one is that Bryant is an Aspie. Now I want to point out that the reason for the rampage - in my opinion - is that he has had a history of being mocked and bullied and something just snapped. What we will probably never know.

4. I support all five of Orion`s points (well covered there at least!)

Now then, Sir Enema claimed that Aspies have a guft with satire. Now in general that may have some truth to it. But satire and mockery are not the same thing. Satire is done with full respect to the subject, and mockery is not. The Aspergers article here is mockery, not satire.

Orion, you were teased as a child because they didn`t understand you. This article is doing the exact same thing. I can forgive children for mocking because they don`t know any better, but adults are another matter. It`s not that we don`t get the jokes (for the most part). We just don`t like getting laughed AT, because we don`t understand why it`s acceptable to do so.

Orion, you also gave us another example which is even better than Bryant. Thank you for that. Along with that note about suicide.

Sir Enema, I think you need to listen to Orion. Assuming bad faith is the wrong attitude to take because it causes more trouble than assuming good faith. I only vandalised because I was being ignored after the first banning prior to Orion first coming across me. This issue can not be ignored. Now maybe I reacted with my gut to the first ban, but after the VFD awhile ago (again, that wasn't about AS) I didn`t see any other way to get my message across.

Sir Cornbread - what you are supporting is mocking something you don`t understand. That is the difference between mocking Aspergers and mocking the other subjects you nominated. Having said that, I'm sure there are blacks in this world who are offended by the phrase you used. Especially if they are a Black Panther (who have a more pronounced prediliction for violence much like Al Queda and the Klu Klux Klan). I wouldn`t know about the middle two (what the heck is an emo anyway?) and homosexuals don`t seem to mind the word gay anymore.

Sir Brad, I said this before (to either Todd or Orion - I can`t remember which) but this article is an example of psychophobia, not me. The classic way to cover that phobia is with careless humour and mockery. I know that through experience. It`s the old adage. We don`t understand, therefore you`re nuts! When the reality is you don`t understand, and that lack of understanding creates fear. Hence the phobia. On your fifth point - every little bit helps. At least until we have the understanding that homosexuals are getting. Then perhaps this article can make a comeback. --Anonymous Slashy

Good point about getting the same respect as homosexuals. Now read Gay Pride.--<<>> 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sara, you aren`t an Aspie judging by that remark you made. --Anonymous Slashy

What, just because I don't take severe offense to the article? If this were a serious page, I'd take offense. But it's Uncyclopedia. It's not supposed to be accurate or PC. --Sara

Sara you just proved you aren't an Aspie. If you were you wouldn't be able to discern as to whether or not this article was serious or not - or you would see the problem and side with me on this. --Anonymous Slashy

Oh, I see what this is about. You're an entitlement whore! I shouldn't have to defend my Aspiedom to some whiny entitlement whore, fuck you! --Sara

Talking of whining - hello, pot calling kettle! You're the entitlement whore, wearing a label that doesn't belong to you! --Anonymous Slashy 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So Sara, Nin, Hrodulf, Insinerate, and Crazysword are all liars and you're telling the truth? If your real problem was Asperger's Syndrome, instead of Ass-for-brains Syndrome, you'd realize how ridiculous that seems. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not ridiculous at all. --Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, completely ridiculous, like everything you say. You have the credibility of a man with a paper asshole. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's ridiculous - remove yourself from the gene pool immediately. Or get a brain - whichever comes first. Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Must get brain! Must get brain! HOO-HOO-HOO-HA-HA-HA! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn son, what kind of Aspie defender are you? For your first bit: This doesn't occur so much with Asperger's syndrome as with the case of low-functioning Autism (which the high-functioning variety is close enough to Asperger's that I shall make no further distinctions between the two) and even if it did, that kind of statement is offensive to myself, Sara, yourself, and any other Aspie you care to name. For the second bit: If there is a problem, it's that the article is not quite humorous enough. But some do find it humorous, and evidently plenty do not agree with you. If anyone would side with you, more power to them, but such blanket statements are worse than the disrespect this article causes.

Won't post here again, hopefully. Famine is right, bitching does little good. --Ж WHEEEEE! 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kalir, you don't know the variants of Aspergers, and further you don't know the roots of it. Low functioning Autism equate to low intelligence. HFA and Aspergers do not. But the root issue of inability to discern is EXACTLY THE SAME! The difference is the ability to learn to overcome that. An LFA can't. My point is that freshly diagnosed Aspies wouldn't be able to discern. That is the danger. Sara should be aware of this problem as I am - and as she isn't, she is not an Aspie. In that context, I stand by what I said. Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you're entitled to your wrong opinion. But we don't have to take it. --Ж WHEEEEE! 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrodulf, you are forgetting one thing. Google. This site (as well as Wikipedia and unfortunately Encyclopedia Dramatica) would come up in it. Because AS is still much maligned and not understood, the accountability level required by sites like this one is that much higher than it is for any other subject (as mentioned by Sir Cornbread). That`s why an interest group like those trying to get Aspies the proper respect we deserve has a much stronger case for objection than any other. If you want to laugh, this article isn`t a good source. I want to know how many people in here know of The Goon Show. Now there is humour for you!

Crazywordsman, that comment demonstrates the very lack of accountability that concerns me.

Spang, that`s an appalling attitude to take. There is an exception to every rule. Taking one rule is the highest form of discrimination of the lot. Anonymous Slashy 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To 69.46.23.138

Anyone who found this place on Google by typing in "Aspergers," and who took the uncyclopedia article as a serious commentary on Aspergers' disorder, is as clueless as the reporters who took the Onion news story about Congress demanding a bigger capitol building with a retractable roof or else they would move to another state as literal, and reported it as real news. I'm afraid you're missing that your position would, taken to its logical conclusion, lead to the destruction of Uncyclopedia.

Aspergers' isn't the only sensitive topic dealt with here. We have articles on the Holocaust(which treats it as a mathematical scenario), Tourette's Syndrome, Niggerlodeon, Nigger, I could list dozens, but that wouldn't accomplish anything. What I am trying to get across is that Uncyclopedia is humor, misinformation and lies. Holding us responsible because someone mistakes us for wikipedia and takes an article here as factually correct is a direct attack on what we do here. We aren't responsible to educate the internet about Aspergers' sensitivity.

And as you may have noticed, I think the Aspergers' article is crap. If you want, you can take a crack at fixing it. That would be a lot more useful than wasting time in here saying you don't like it and think it's somehow a threat to Aspergers' awareness when it's just one site on the internet out of, what, several billion? I think your concern that this is somehow damaging to Aspergers' awareness is a little hypersensitive and somewhat ridiculous, to be completely and damningly honest and utterly lacking in any tact whatsover (since tact tends to get in the way of clear communication, and I'm taking pains to get across exactly what I think of all of this).

May I also respectfully suggest that this little rant is getting you a lot of attention, and perhaps this is what this is really all about? You have to ask yourself that question and look for the answer, I can't do it for you. Keep in mind that Statler & Waldorf hated the muppet show, but came to every performance because they loved to complain about how bad it was in their opinion. You're welcome to the role of flinging virtual vegetables at us, but you'd probably be better off trying to learn a little more about this place, broadening your perspective and realizing that it's not always about you.

Better now? Good. --Hrodulf 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And as a codicil, I think the existence of Neurotypical syndrome pretty much makes your position even sillier; if we're saying being normal is a "disease" also I think it's pretty clear that our position on Aspergers' is just like our position on every other object, person, animal or idea in the universe: something to throw comedy darts at. As Sappho once wrote, if you are squeamish, do not look at what's washed up on shore. --Hrodulf 07:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add yet another angle to this rather convoluted debate, would perhaps the best road to take be a partial rewrite? I'm entirely behind the idea that the best way to help people understand an issue and confront their prejudices regarding it is through humour, however this kind of ideal isn't entirely applicable to this page (for the aforementioned reasons)- there is a stand off between not wanting to offend people who perhaps wouldn't understand that we're joking and not wanting to make exceptions to our rule of making fun of absolutely everything (which in the end would just be a type of discrimination, don't you agree, um, "69.46.23.138"?) So, my proposal is just to make the page a lot more silly- at the moment what it seems (to me) to be making fun of is how intolerant and ignorant some people are regarding mental illnesses (although I understand that according to the autistic rights movement you shouldn't refer to it as an illness) and it is understandable that that kind of approach could engender some misunderstandings (especially with lines like "Asperger Syndrome itself seems little more than an attempt by irritatingly self-absorbed people to have carte blanche to treat fellow human beings like the stuff you might scrape off the bottom of a swine farmer's boots."), so would the best thing to do be having a page on asperger syndrome which is so overtly ridiculous that no-one is going to confuse it with a genuinely bigoted opinion? Just an idea. --Sir Jam 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the matter is that Aspergers' is a difference, not a disease, any more than being left-handed is a "disease," rather than merely a different way in which to be human. Not that this means much. If I get an idea, I will try to rewrite, but I'm not particularly inspired at the moment (my last unnews article about the Statute of Liberty sucked, for example . . . ) --Hrodulf 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put... I have to confess, I wish I knew more about Aspergers, especially given that 4 uncyc users have suddenly revealed themselves as aspies (I'm assuming it's okay to say that, even though it sounds rather like a derogatory term, since our anonymous friend seems to be saying it freely) on this forum. I can only suppose that, having had my dad (who is a psychiatrist) and "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time" as my main sources of information on this matter I assumed most aspies were rather more socially impaired than you apparently are- hence i'm now somewhat more inclined to refer to it as a difference rather than an illness (although, in the context of our society, I can still see the point of view that it is an affliction). --Sir Jam 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Different people suffer from different degrees of the syndrome, and some people, like me, have been able to learn to compensate for what the syndrome takes away by being more conscious than most people about empathy and how others perceive you, as well as such things as eye contact, conversation and interaction. Life experience is irreplacable as a learning tool, and after years of social stumbling and failure, the right ways to act eventually do get kind of beaten into you. It helps to know you have it; if you don't know you have it, it's very difficult to control because you don't look at what you're doing and how other people see what you're doing because you think everything's normal and you lack perspective. I'd like to think that I've progressed to the point where I'm fully capable of participating in normal society without any exceptional incidents, and so far I think that belief has been justified.

The narrator of "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time" was a more extreme case than most people I have met who have the disorder. Everyone's mileage varies with this sort of thing, and some people are worse off than others. We all have to try to learn to do the best we can and be more careful, perhaps, than is usual about what we do and say to avoid problems. --Hrodulf 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous poster:

Point #1: You claim that the article is mocking people with an mental condition', saying:

"The article is mocking in it`s nature." — "The Aspergers article here is mockery, not satire." — "We just don`t like getting laughed AT" — "what you are supporting is mocking something you don`t understand" — "careless humour and mockery"

My Response: I disagree with this assessment. When I read the article in question it seems clearly to be using Asperger's Syndrome as a vehicle to mock Hollywood celebrities. As I said above, I believe the joke is that the article pretends that anti-social behavior by celebrities is a result of a condition they cannot control, so as to highlight the fact that in reality they have no excuse for their behavior.

Point #2: You seem to claim that we have a special responsibility to Asperger's Syndrome sufferers because they are particularly sensitive, saying:

"Because AS is still much maligned and not understood, the accountability level required by sites like this one is that much higher than it is for any other subject" — "the ... lack of accountability ... concerns me" — "[Spang's belief that we should not give preferential treatment to possible offense taken by people with Asperger's Syndrome is ] an appalling attitude to take."

My Response: We are a humor site, not a progressive social activism site. We assume that people who come here understand the nature of the site, and that its content is light-hearted not serious, and that its intent is to amuse not offend. Those that do not understand this are welcome to find their entertainment elsewhere. To assume that a person cannot comprehend this and take responsibility for their own actions (including taking offense to something) is to treat them as a child, and I refuse to single out Aspies as a group to treat as children.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

HEAR, HEAR! People with Asperger Syndrome are not helpless animals incapable of controlling their actions/reactions. Treating them as such IS PSYCHOPHOBIA. "Oh God. You've got to be careful what you say about them. They're CRAZY and could go on a KILLING SPREE at the SLIGHTEST provocation!" THAT'S PSYCHOPHOBIA, not "respect," as you're pretending. A humorous article about AS at a parody wiki is not psychophobia, acting as though AS sufferers are all potential mass murderers is. Step back and realize what you're saying.--<<>> 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Brad, you are a blithering idiot! It's HAPPENED! Port Arthur 1996! And the example Orion mentioned above, and I quote;

• There was another example of an Internet forum making fun of an AS sufferer and he asked where to get buckshot to shoot at people who vandalized his puckins(SIC) and they made fun of him and some told him where to buy the buckshoot and he shot a few people as a result. --Anonymous Slashy

A phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear. I have been completely rational. If I have any fear, it's of people like you lot who refuse to take this issue seriously and potentially jeopardise lives. You are all behaving like children, and you are supposed to be adults (I assume you are all adults!), with a decent amount of accountability. As I said, you are all suffering from psychophobia because you are hiding from the cold hard facts behind inappropriate and poorly disguised humour. And no regard for the potential consequences. You are the ones not being rational. I try to educate (in my own way) and so does Orion to an extent - and you refuse to raise your accountability levels because it spoils your fun. Well in this case, the fun stops because this is the wrong way to go about it. Just like the Danish cartoons mocking Allah. Careless, ill timed and therefore completely unacceptable. --Anonymous Slashy

The only unacceptable thing about that incident is that some people seem to think it's acceptable to commit murder over some cartoons, or a beauty contest, as occurred in Nigeria. I think the cartoons are offensive, but I think people have the right to be offensive. I am against slander laws, obscenity laws and all forms of censorship. If someone takes offense, they can be offended. They don't have the right to resort to violence, and I don't think they should be able to sue. This is becase, as a left leaning libertarian, I think I should be freer than this society believes I am. You apparently disagree. And guess what? My opinion is just as good as yours. --Hrodulf 09:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENSIVE??? Are you nuts, Hrodulf? That's the same as saying Al Queda had the right to bomb the World Trade Towers! And you know as well as I do they did NOT! That assertion is even more unrealistic than any argument you accuse me of! Tenfold! You are a dangerous fool, Hrodulf. Claiming such freedom denies freedom to others to live a full free life, and for that you should be absolutely ashamed to be a human being to have such a callous attitude. And that very attitude breeds violence - and you don't give a crap about it. Talk about a complete lack of accountability. Go over to Encyclopedia Dramatica. They'll love you over there. You don't even belong here after reading that rubbish. --Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good God. I've been staring at the computer trying to figure out how I can possibly express how angry this makes me. And I can't do it. After spending ten years on the internet, hanging out religious fundies, joining the Army and interrogating terrorists in Iraq, this is the single most infuriating thing I have ever heard someone say. I can't believe that you, or anyone, would dare compare offensive comments to the WTC bombings. Suffice to say, for someone who says people do not have the right to offend, you just offended the shit out of me, you hypocrite. So, according to the statement you just made, you should now be required to shut your cakehole.144.59.12.174 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason my comment angered you is because you are the sort of person who would use your freedom to deprive the weak of theirs. Fact does not offend - or at least it shouldn't. If it does offend you, then you are in bad need of a reality check. I'll say no more than that. --Anonymous Slashy 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Extremism is frightening to watch in action, isn't it, 144.59.12.174? But you already knew that of course. It's still a bit of a new experience for me. --Hrodulf 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New experience?? ROTFLMAO! What cave have you been living in for the last couple of decades? --Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Final Message --Hrodulf 03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak. Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Great point, I'd been so busy looking at the forest of anon's craziness that I didn't even stop to think about this statement as really and truly insane. Of course you're right, but Slashy won't care. He only cares about people who offend him, not who he offends by his comments in this forum, such as his ridiculous accusations that I (and others in here) are faking Aspergers', or saying that I deserve worldwide condemnation for having a somewhat libertarian approach to free speech that he doesn't like.

Thanks for a great observation about the ongoing farce that is Slashy on uncyclopedia! --Hrodulf 09:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that from you, Hrodulf. You forget that I'm not the only one who has challenged you on your liberalism - as you confessed yourself! So don't limit the issue to just me! --Anonymous Slashy 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Final Message --Hrodulf 10:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet you keep coming back for more. Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Final Message --Hrodulf 00:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And again - gee you're a glutton for punishment aren't you? Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Danish Cartoons? Oh, you mean protected free speech? Clearly you haven't even seen the cartoons, they're pretty fucking funny. --User:Nintendorulez 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Final Message --Hrodulf 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your WTC comment and the accompanying paragraph offended me. I was so furious that it took me three drafts to write a response that wasn't vulgar. So, according to your own statement, you must stop and remove your comments. You can either (1) take my complaint seriously, and at least appear to maintain your credibility, or (2) admit that you are a raging hypocrite and lose all credibility. You must make a choice and cannot have it both ways.

If you are not willing to acknowledge the fact that you offended me, then none of us should be under any obligation to acknowledge that we offend you. On the other hand, if you are advocating censorship for offensive topics, then you must be willing to consider that you are offending me and you must stop. Right now, you look like you are advocating censorship for everyone but consider yourself special and somehow an exception to your own rule.Jboyler 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If that offends you, Jboyler - then frankly you are living in fantasy land. Allow me to elaborate. The reason Al Queda was formed was because THEY were offended by the interference in their lives by the western world. That's a fact. Look what it created! 9/11. Now I know you are going to say they had nothing to be offended about - I say they did. I have always argued that the US government and it's allies are nothing more than a bunch of bullies when it comes to culture. They are having an adverse effect of the culture of other countries - and by taking the attitude of having the right to offend, you have to also take the consequences. And acknowledge the bad reactions even if they are wrong (which 9/11 was and I never said otherwise). What you are doing is concentrating on the action. That is a thumbs down on YOUR credibility because you aren't prepared to notice the whole picture. So I stand by what I said. I have not offended you, and the judgment lays in the person living in the real world. You are not so you don't count. Adjust your thinking or you'll be constantly offended for the rest of your life and it will be no one's fault but your own. --Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

How do you know whether I am offended? You don't. I could be offended, or I could be making it all up. Maybe I'm lying to you. Maybe I'm not. You haven't met me in real life, so you don't know. How do I know that you are offended? How do I know that you have Aspergers Syndrome? How do I know that you're not making it all up? I don't. Yet you expect us to censor ourselves because of things you are saying which we have no way of proving. You expect us to take your word for it.

The only clear thing is: You are asking us to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do. And that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Oh, and by the way, yes, I was offended, and you have no right to tell me I'm not. Also BTW, I don't give a shit about the muslim world the same way I don't give a shit about people with Asperger's syndrome. The difference between me and you is that when I say something, I mean it, and I don't consider myself an exception to my own rules.Jboyler 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all - I have already said time and time again why I can't do what you lot expect me to do. Because firstly there's a person called Todd Lyons who won't release the ban on my root IP, and secondly because the AS article is locked from editing. So I stand by my statement in that regard. Second - start giving a shit about Muslims and Aspies, because that's at the root of your whole problem. If you started giving a shit, you'd start to see the offence that both parties have and you'll see that being offensive is WRONG! Especially deliberately! What are you afraid of? --Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolut richtig, Jboyler, Slashy doesn't care about anybody but himself. Which is why he also thinks that a mildly offensive page on Aspergers' justifies a 60+ page (and growing) VD forum rant and threats against uncyclopedia and individual uncyclopedians. Since he loves pithy sayings so much, I'll use one: the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And a really squeaky wheel gets a lot of grease. So the problem is in the process of solving itself, as only we uncyclopedians know how to do it, and maybe he'll even learn something from this experience. Or not. Whatever doesn't grow and develop really isn't living. --Hrodulf 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I care about the oppressed, Hrodulf. Aspies, along with others who are similarly having their freedom taken away by the very freedom you are preaching. I am one of them, and I am not alone. You are the one who is alone - IRL that is (as you admitted yourself). --Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Final Message --Hrodulf 01:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak #2. Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Final Message --Hrodulf 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My second contribution

Hrodulf, you are seriously misjudging the potential interpretation of this article by someone coming here via Google. I am talking about someone who has just been diagnosed, and is trying to do the right thing and find out as much about it as they can. Now - they come across this article. The automatic reaction is humiliation. Like Oh gosh I have this problem and everyone's going to make fun of me! It's all downhill from there! It's a reaction not of a stupid person, but of a person with no knowledge and trying to learn. Does that explain the situation better so you see that in this case humour is inappropriate and dangerous. As far as rewriting it is concerned - no I wont`t. Because it should not be made fun of until it is well known and understood. Also - Aspies are by nature hypersensitive (hence the poor ability to cope with destructive criticism). As for the suggestion that I`m an attention seeker - I am seeking attention for the disability as a whole. That`s not just about me. It`s about all Aspies - especially the ones who have the potential of following Martin Bryant's line, who whilst they may be in the minority (thank goodness) can still do a great deal of damage. Especially in a country like America where the gun controls that Australia has do not exist. Statler and Waldorf is a bad example of the way you were translating something. I`m all for satire. I`m against mockery. It`s you who needs to broaden your perspective instead of claiming that single rule that someone else did. As far as that last remark goes - I suggest the Google situation would counter that assertion very effectively. When an Aspie is seeking information in the early stages, taking in the wrong information is very easy to do. That is, how to recognise something that makes you squeamish.

Sir Jam is right about one thing - there is a stand off here. But making the article even sillier would defeat the purpose, and I go back again to Google. Why won`t anyone see the danger? This is what I was talking about (or rather arguing about) with Orion on his talk page.

And Hrodulf, being different is the whole point. This is all about understanding that difference which at the moment most of you don`t (except the genuine Aspies). And until you do, making fun of it is wrong. Because you don`t know what you`re dealing with. It was like the Danes and their cartoons mocking the Muslims - it was poorly researched and as a result provocational even to the moderates (the extremists don`t matter). It was also very poorly timed.

Isra, you HAVE to treat Aspies as children. Especially those who have just been diagnosed. For example, an Aspie who is physically 18 would only have the social age of a ten year old - if that (it varies from Aspie to Aspie depending on their upbringing and school experience). I was diagnosed when I was 32. At that time socially I would estimate I was probably something like 21 at the most. Now I`m not claiming to be treated like a child myself (heck no - since I was diagnosed a number of social issues have caught up with my physical age). But that`s beside the point. As far as that comment about going elsewhere is concerned - I also point you to the example about Google.

Now as far as that first comment goes, Isra, What has this got to do with Hollywood?

• Asperger Syndrome (pronounced ASS-burger SIN-drome) is a semi-voluntary behavioural disorder in the guise of a more serious and involuntary neurodevelopmental disability.

Now that is not on for a start. And that`s the first sentence of the whole page! It implies that the habits of Aspies are voluntary - which is consistent with a bully's usual line of Don`t use Aspergers as an excuse to be an idiot. That`s intolerant. Now if an Aspie fresh of a diagnosis was to read that it would confuse the dickens out of him or her. The rest of that would not help at all. And I go on....

• some of the insufferables started to repeat personal monologues in high pitched voices

That is a complete and absolute lie and should be completely removed by itself!

I don't know why, but I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you've chosen to take particular offense at this line.--<<>> 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See, that proves you don`t understand because you don`t even know what you`re laughing it! That`s even more dangerous! --Anonymous Slashy

• Whining was largely replaced by crying, stomping, pouting, shouting, temper tantrums, throwing objects, fire and brimstone, and the threat of litigation. Outbursts of uncontrollable aggression and violent manners were observed, as insufferables were informed that they had been part of a scientific observation

Here`s another example of intolerance - that is not noting why this happens. The reason is because the Aspie`s structure has been interfered with in some way. The way that is written insinuates it happens for no good reason, an attitude which follows on from the pyschophobia I was referring to earlier.

Under conclusions there is another part that should be completely deleted - causes. See the previous paragraph for why. Again - none of this has to do with Hollywood.

The whole thing is putting the Hollywood names into a box that they don`t belong in. And it`s a poor cover for the real intent - to make fun of Aspergers. Just when I am battling a government who doesn`t take it seriously, and I am not the only one fighting that battle either. And one more point - ADHD and Aspergers do NOT share the same concentration span. ADHD is worse because the poor concentration covers everything. With Aspergers the effect is nowhere near as general. Anonymous Slashy 08:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother arguing the general uncyc viewpoint on this any more, since there are so many other users who could do it far more eloquently, but can i just point out that if there's one argument which is never going to work here it is pointing out factual inaccuracies in articles- look at the note on the front page: "the content-free encyclopedia". While i can sympathise with your argument, you're never going to persuade anyone around to your way of thinking by simply pointing out that we're not telling the truth... if you search the entire site and come up with more than one iota of truth i would be quite impressed. --Sir Jam 09:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

AnonIP, your google example is mere fantasy. I attempted searches on six variants of Asperger('s) [Syndrome] and clicked through as far as the first 500 results on each. Uncyclopedia's page was not among them, though ED's shows up between pages 19 and 25 depending on the search terms. As for treating Aspies like children, I don't buy it because my experience is that the Aspies I have known have no defiency in intelligence. And if I were to treat someone like a child, the result would be that I would kick them out of here, because this is not a site for children.

There is a defiency in social skills, which has to be treated in a similar way to low intelligence as a lack of social skills is seen by general society as low intelligence. I speak through experience. So if you doon`t buy that argument you don`t want to understand AS. As for Google - I don`t know what you did wrong, but Uncyclopedia came up for me on about page 8 or 9. And you're right about this site not being for children. But it's not the children that are the potential problem, as they get all the help they need. Unlike adult Aspies. Anonymous Slashy 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On point two, read the phrases you excerpted again. Now think about famous actors who throw fits. Starting to make sense now? Starting to understand why monologues are even mentioned? Starting to understand why press agents are mentioned? Starting to understand why it states with irony that the conditions of the syndrome are voluntary?

Don`t patronise me and worse don`t try and create something just to ignore what I`m saying. Whether or not what you say is true is moot. The fact remains that there is more than one interpretation, and the sooner you stop preaching your own and start paying attention to mine and that of every other Aspie the better YOU will understand. Anonymous Slashy 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really can't get that this page is funny and doesn't mock Aspies, you'll have to take our word for it. Or else take the word of some poster I found when performing the only google search that does turn up our page (searching for "uncyclopedia asperger syndrome"). That poster says: "It's called satire! The symptoms they describe are not AS symptoms, but NT 'traits'. They just pathologize them to make a point. They´re one our side." [1]

---Rev. Isra (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that forum and there are a number of users who are on the verge of being thrown out for careless comments like this one. I know this because the admin is a member of another Aspie forum that I am also a member of and it's getting an airing there as well. I'd link to it but you have to be a member and in a certain group to be able to see it. Aside from the fact that the interpretation is wrong anyway. And Uncyclopedia is definitely NOT on our side, because if it was this article would be deleted! Anonymous Slashy 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That interpretation is wrong, eh? So, the author of the article, the admins of this site, the requent readers of this site, and the only person in that forum who actualy commented about the article: they are all wrong. You, an anonymous IP who has behaved badly, vandalized the site, threatened our users, and vowed to shut down the site by 2007: you are correct. Hmmm. Wait, no! It's just the opposite. We're not going to codle you here. Grow a sense of humor or get the fuck out. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And now the foul language comes out. You don't have a sense of humour so don't tell me to grow one. When one drops to foul language one has lost the fight. Yes they are all wrong - because of the lack of understanding. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a new one. An Aspergers' extremist. "Don't put anything on the internet anywhere that might be interpreted as disrespectful to Aspergers' someone might get hurt. Oh, and take down Holocaust, Niggerlodeon and Nigger also. What if a Holocaust survivor or a person of color was looking up the holocaust or the n-word on google and ended up here and had their feelings hurt."

By this logic, Uncyclopedia will finally be "dolphin safe" when there are no articles left. You're entitled to your opinion that the article is offensive and should be removed. However, as I've said several times before, we aren't going to delete it. If you want to change it, write a better article. We're not going to delete the topic because if we do it for you, we have to do it for everybody. And then we don't have a comedy site.

I'm personally completely disgusted by your victim mentality. Grow some skin over those exposed nerves. If you can't handle that a comedy website has an article about AS you don't like, it's incredible to me that you're capable of dealing with day to day life involving people not related to you on any level. Maybe someday you'll be in a place where you've developed to a point where you understand what I'm trying to get across about all of this. Clearly, you're not there yet. --Hrodulf 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact I do have spasmodic problems with day to day life - all the more reason why people like you should just back off and think about what you're playing around with. You're the one who has a long way to go when it comes to understanding Aspergers. You MUST pay attention to it - out of tolerance if anything else. When one doesn't pay attention, that's when the problems start. And who's fault is that? Not us Aspies. We can't help being an Aspie - it's genetic. You CAN help being tolerant. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me that all we need to do to rewrite the article is take your posts, annotate them to point out your delusional perspective on this situation, and make the article out of that. The inability to distinguish between a joke and an attack, the making of something that isn't personal personal, hypersensitivity to what's arguably a mild bit of prose, if even that, not to mention the total refusal to see the broader picture and realize that what you're essentially asking us to do is shut the site down, are all on display in full regalia. Maybe to you, avoiding offending one AS individual is worth shutting Uncyclopedia down for. What you're failing to grasp, again, is that good comedy is never "safe." Someone will always be offended. Bill Cosby made a joke once that he had trouble with pumpernickel in dark restaurants, because sometimes, he'd accidentally butter his hand. Offensive? Yes. Also arguably hilarious. We're not going to AS-safe Uncyclopedia and rende