Re: grobertson and Donna

[Guest guest]

Raven... The problem is that it is somewhat borderline on the

internet... For example, extending that logic (as this group is

technically on the internet), I could post the entire contents of this

group online. Some parts of this are quite personal, and possibly a

little damaging for some of us.Though I am not yet forming a firm

opinion, as I have not yet read the referenced debate fully, but it

sounds borderline to me. Also, for example, I might be able to find

your SSN through an online database.

> First off, when one does an interview where the interview is published, one

> can no longer claim anonymity on the Internet.

>

Great memory though.

> You posted on October 4 that you grew up in South Africa. You posted that

> you are now in Australia. You posted that you studied psychology. You

> posted that you have spent over 20 years working with children. You posted

> you have spoken to literally thousands of children.

>

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " I run a forum. I do not make the information

people supply on joining public ... <snip> ... "

Neither did . Your interview with Donna is public

knowledge ergo it is not private information that you did an interview

with Donna .

When someone makes an outrageous claim that they have dealt

with 'literally thousands' (your words) then you are asking to have

your credibility checked. I am not the only person who felt compelled

to look up who you are based on four very basic search engine

parameters. It isn't like anyone needed intimate, targeted words for

the search engine.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I would not have minded at all if

I thought that the interview with Donna was noted and mentioned as part

of people's browsing on the net. I mind that the information was used

in a post which I do not believe had anything to do with the

discussion, other than that I am a teacher ... <snip> ... "

But by your own claims you are MORE than just a teacher; you are seen

as an authority with regards to teaching autistic children according to

your own comments, having influence on 'literally thousands' of

others.

So that others can better understand the degree to which you have

influence on others when you claim to have none because you haven't a

raft of University degrees or money to be seen as credible (as if money

buys credibility) is important.

You cannot claim to be without influence when you are on Donna

' radar to the point where she does an interview with you,

gprobertson. We can all see that is true.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I mind because Donna has nothing to

do with my opinions and I do not choose to involve her in my dealings

on the net without her permission ... <snip> ... "

Firstly, no one here involved Donna in your affairs -- you did

that when you agreed to a public interview that you knew was going to

be posted on the Internet at a number of websites.

Secondly, you cannot have things both ways.

In other words, you cannot claim to be an influential individual with

regards to the Autism world while at the same time claiming to be a

nobody with no influence in the Autism world. One of those

two 'images' you are presenting HERE in THIS forum is false. Either

1) you are influential, having sway over 'literally thousands' as you

wrote in early October in which your statement makes it clear you are a

PUBLIC figure of sorts on some degree ergo your comments impact with

more resonance than if you were merely a private individual only

OR

2) You are a deluded individual who claims to have sway

over 'literally thousands' in an attempt to have your words taken more

seriously by those you would like to sway with your views.

Neither scenario involves Donna past the fact that you granted

her an interview earlier this year which goes to the heart of the first

option.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am allowed to have an opinion on

this, I hope, just as people may differ if they choose, but it should

not become a brawl. That is ridiculous ... <snip> ... "

You seem to write quite a bit about the ridiculousness of things

whenever you are taken to task on your outrageous claims, gprobertson.

And this is not the first time you have made some asinine claim such as

things coming " a brawl. " Honestly, jprobertson, you write with

victimhood flair and you purposely misrepresent what others have

clearly written when the truth about who you are hits the light of

day. I wonder why that is.

Raven

[Guest guest]

>

> Raven... The problem is that it is somewhat borderline on the

> internet... For example, extending that logic (as this group is

> technically on the internet), I could post the entire contents of this

> group online. Some parts of this are quite personal, and possibly a

> little damaging for some of us. "

>

Wow!! Just Wow!! My first day and someone here is threatening to

copy and post site messages elsewhere? I don't quite believe the 'for

example' disclaimer. What a thing to say on a group like this.

So much for trust and safety!

On the pandemic flu boards there's a guy who would come into the chat

room, not say much, listening in, and then out of the blue, ask if he

could copy the chat and post it other places. He was always told no,

but did he respect that, or do it anyway? There's no way to know for

sure. There was a vibrant group of people helping each other out, and

he destroyed it. No one trusted him, so the chats died away. Just the

suggestion that he would do such a thing was so terribly destructive.

I'm not sure how much I'll post here. Thanks alot Zoe.

[Guest guest]

two_b_sailing wrote: " Wow!! Just Wow!! My first day and someone

here is threatening to copy and post site messages elsewhere? I

don't quite believe the 'for example' disclaimer... <snip> ... Just

the suggestion that he would do such a thing was so terribly

destructive. I'm not sure how much I'll post here. Thanks alot

Zoe ... <snip> ... "

Zoe is very young, two-b-sailing, and while she contributes

interesting bits to the group, she does not fully understand the

difference between (a) posting a PUBLIC interview that is available

online and in hard copy and ( posting PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL

information from a PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL forum elsewhere on the

Internet or in hard copy.

This is evidenced by the fact that she indicated that she could find

and post my SSN if she felt like it. I could easily take

that 'comment' as a threat to my personal safety since it falls under

the definition of 'criminal harassment' among other possible criminal

charges, whether Zoe posts my SSN is immaterial.

One of the cornerstones of this forum is the confidentiality all of

us support. That Zoe would use the example show did only shows that

she does not understand that posting the link to gprobertson's

interview is not a violation of confidentiality in any way.

While I completely understand your very valid concerns, it saddens me

that Zoe's suggestion has placed you in a position where you feel you

cannot post freely to this forum.

Zoe, I believe you may want to address this directly, answering two-b-

sailing's very serious concerns to two-b-sailing's satisfaction.

Raven

[Guest guest]

I have worked with thousands of children. I have not worked with thousands of autistic children, but that was not my statement. I have only worked with about 40 autistic children if you limit that to those who had a dx at the time. As for authority, well I start my talks with the fact that I am not an autism expert. I am an expert in my own autism. I use what I know about myself and the people I talk with to help parents, teachers and children. It is not totally altruistic. I get paid for work in schools. I do not get paid for work outside the education department but I was given the advice that the best way to help yourself is to help others, so there is a strong element of personal gain in what I do. That might be bad but I trhink most people gain from the things they do that benefit others even if it is not financial gain. I have my job because the suggestions I make are effective. I know that because the children are all happily included in mainstream schools and there are no families of autistic children in conflict with schools in this district, unlike the rest of the state. I am not a monster.

Re: grobertson and Donna

gprobertson wrote: "I run a forum. I do not make the information people supply on joining public ... <snip> ... "

Neither did . Your interview with Donna is public knowledge ergo it is not private information that you did an interview with Donna .

When someone makes an outrageous claim that they have dealt with 'literally thousands' (your words) then you are asking to have your credibility checked. I am not the only person who felt compelled to look up who you are based on four very basic search engine parameters. It isn't like anyone needed intimate, targeted words for the search engine.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I would not have minded at all if I thought that the interview with Donna was noted and mentioned as part of people's browsing on the net. I mind that the information was used in a post which I do not believe had anything to do with the discussion, other than that I am a teacher ... <snip> ... "

But by your own claims you are MORE than just a teacher; you are seen as an authority with regards to teaching autistic children according to your own comments, having influence on 'literally thousands' of others. So that others can better understand the degree to which you have influence on others when you claim to have none because you haven't a raft of University degrees or money to be seen as credible (as if money buys credibility) is important. You cannot claim to be without influence when you are on Donna ' radar to the point where she does an interview with you, gprobertson. We can all see that is true.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I mind because Donna has nothing to do with my opinions and I do not choose to involve her in my dealings on the net without her permission ... <snip> ... "

Firstly, no one here involved Donna in your affairs -- you did that when you agreed to a public interview that you knew was going to be posted on the Internet at a number of websites.

Secondly, you cannot have things both ways. In other words, you cannot claim to be an influential individual with regards to the Autism world while at the same time claiming to be a nobody with no influence in the Autism world. One of those two 'images' you are presenting HERE in THIS forum is false. Either 1) you are influential, having sway over 'literally thousands' as you wrote in early October in which your statement makes it clear you are a PUBLIC figure of sorts on some degree ergo your comments impact with more resonance than if you were merely a private individual only

OR 2) You are a deluded individual who claims to have sway over 'literally thousands' in an attempt to have your words taken more seriously by those you would like to sway with your views.

Neither scenario involves Donna past the fact that you granted her an interview earlier this year which goes to the heart of the first option.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am allowed to have an opinion on this, I hope, just as people may differ if they choose, but it should not become a brawl. That is ridiculous ... <snip> ... "

You seem to write quite a bit about the ridiculousness of things whenever you are taken to task on your outrageous claims, gprobertson.

And this is not the first time you have made some asinine claim such as things coming "a brawl." Honestly, jprobertson, you write with victimhood flair and you purposely misrepresent what others have clearly written when the truth about who you are hits the light of day. I wonder why that is.

Raven

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " I have worked with thousands of childre. I have

not worked with thousands of autistic children, but that was not my

statement. I have only worked with about 40 autistic children if you

limit that to those who had a dx at the time ... <snip> ... "

"

I have worked with literally

thousands of young children ... [end quote]. "

If you have worked with that many young children, as I stated

previously, then you are obviously considered to be somewhat of a

credible authority.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... As for authority, well I start my

talks with the fact that I am not an autism expert. I am an expert

in my own autism. I use what I know about myself and the people I

talk with to help parents, teachers and children ... <snip> ... "

Exactly and because you say you are Autistic, people listen to you

even especially when you suggest that SonRise is a program worth

considering. That you would do so speaks loudly to the fact that you

have not done sufficient research on the subject of Autism to

understand that promoting programs and therapies that are unproven or

disproven, and in many cases harmful -- sometimes fatally so -- to

Autistics is even more appalling!

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... It is not totally altruistic. I

get paid for work in schools. I do not get paid for work outside the

education department ... <snip> ... "

Yes, well, you have to earn a living so it stands to reason you would

get paid for what you do. That was never an issue.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I have my job because the

suggestions I make are effective ... <snip> ... "

And many of the suggestions you make are dangerous but appear to be

effective. I'm certain that those who worked with the little boy in

Chatham, ON were able to make the same claim and yet 5 years later

the child is " Autistic once again. " Those people are able to " claim "

that their suggestions were effective ... at least for almost 5 years.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I know that because the children

are all happily included in mainstream schools and there are no

families of autistic children in conflict with schools in this

district, unlike the rest of the state ... <snip> ... "

Without proof to back up that statement, I find it unbelievable. No

one ever has a 100% success rate no matter how good they are at their

job.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am not a monster ...

<snip> ... "

No one said you are a monster. What many of us are saying is that

you are acting irresponsibly and dangerously so, in supporting and

promoting programs such as the SonRise program that makes use of

quack therapies and promotes a CURE where none exists and will never

exist because Autism is not something that needs to be CURED in the

first place.

Raven

[Guest guest]

>

> I do not say that Son Rise is a program worth considering.?

> I say that it is a good thing to join an autistic child in his or her

world.? Son Rise does that.? It is the only aspect of Son Rise that I

promote.

I'm going to put my two cents into this conversation.

Simply put, gp is a TEACHER.

Parents will listen to their words and believe they come from a person

who may be more KNOWLEDGABLE than themselves.

If ONE parent of an autistic child even HEARS the name Son Rise, they

may go look into the program.

Even if the teacher only uses A method involved with the program, the

parents will not understand that the ENTIRE program is not acceptable.

Even if the teacher does not CONDONE or approve of all the program

involves the parent will not understand.

By not dissaproving of it verbally altogether, may be assumed WORTHY.

If the parent looks into Son Rise, they may be duped into thinking

there is a CURE.

Thus, the teacher must know that by mentioning the name, they can put

a child at risk of ABUSE.

Resolution is simple, do NOT mention the name of that program.

ONLY talk about what METHODS will be used when the child is with the

teacher.

Kim