You know what? My prerogative is mine, and not yours to announce, nor declare. Venturing into pomposity and the realms of semi-digested wikipedia references is a risky arena, and acutely discomforting when you inherit the distortions and mis-coordinated logic that is inherent to communal contributory discussion.
Secondly, I didn’t make that equation, and you’re failing to distinguish the absolutely clear reference trail, hence making a fallacious and erroneous connection between my commentary and the “accusation”, which you insist on lending the nominal gravity of inexperienced judgement.
So logical abstraction fail. There is no underlying concept. There is no connection. You made a mistake, you don’t get your facts straight, and reinforce my view that you’re simply hanging around to troll. That, all deduced from one simple thread, where every opportunity was easily available to get it right.
Are those rates for entering the plea, or is it a base starting point? I could see extra funding for actually having to work on a case rather than just having the defendant plead guilty in court. Do the attorneys get hourly rates in addition, or simply some type of lump sum, with the fees you mentioned?
I am sick of autism being used as an insult, and when it’s a disability, it’s because society is built around allistic people, and generally speaking around neurotypical people on ach spectrum, and is not built to consider our needs. For example, the grocery store across the street is built with painfully strobing, painfully loud fluorescent lights, which are a hazard to some autistic people and some epileptic people.
My apologies if you feel insulted by anything I’ve written. However, please review what it is I have written - at no point have I made any statement derogatory to autism, nor do I hold any views derogatory to autism.
I shouldn’t enjoy being dragged into the quagmire simply because I’ve sparred with someone who both incorrectly and without foundation made that accusation.
If you follow the course of the thread, you can identify precisely where the tar-brush was painted towards me, and how that waving of the tarred brush was inexcusably inaccurate.
On the other hand, if I have erred and mis-expressed myself, again, I’m happy to apologise, and would appreciate where I erred being pointed out to me.
I have a hard time telling who said what here. By default, the text is tiny and unreadable, with only a narrow sliver between the black bar at the top and the comments box at the bottom. If I zoom in, the text gets a bit bigger, but the sliver gets even smaller. I am a bit on edge, both because of the comments here and the awful comments on the Guardian lately.
Never trust a French Academic with a Portuguese name!
She’s using the term “autism” to catapult her book to international attention. Her and her PR people know perfectly well just how insulting that is.
“National autism” - wow. That’s about as rude as it comes. Conflating autism and national is throwing that net out far and wide, kind of into a dictionary and catching whatever comes back.
As for the other chappie - Pierre Lellouche - “Louche” means, in French, untrustworthy and dangerous, someone who inhabits the darker corners and provides conduits to the worse aspects of life.
@NeueHeimat, @peregrinus_bis: To rail on at someone over many posts for him having the temerity to criticize an editorial decision, to call him “autistic” for doing so, and to repeatedly defend calling him autistic because it’s not a “mental illness” and so can’t possibly be insulting, is taking things a bit far.
I don’t think there’s a real problem with occasionally commenting a editorial tone or choice at BB – people do it because they love BB, and because, for good or bad, they see BB as being something more than a tiny unknown private blog in the ocean of the web. If someone only comes here to criticize the editors, that’s one thing, but @Glitch clearly doesn’t do that.
Getting into an insulting fight with another commenter is a different matter, and I think it’s significantly less cool and brings down the quality of BB comment threads. I come here precisely because commenters here are usually better than that, and when they argue they argue over the substance of ideas, not just to insult.
I didn’t bring up the term autism, nor did I suggest it, and nor would I. If you follow the thread from the top you’ll see the evolution of the discourse.
But we’ve all seen this kind of thing many times, so suggest we just move on.
