Monday, June 6, 2011

Building Communities by Exclusion: Or, I accept everyone…except you. I don’t like you.

I promised myself I would back off from blogging for a while. I swore that I would focus on my work and my family and not get drawn into the stupidity and arrogance of the false skeptics and the pseudoscience nutjobs. We all know them. They are the ones who ridicule parents like myself because we believe that our children were injured by vaccines. They are the ones who laugh at parents of vaccine injured children, proclaiming that we have all the answers and that we think we know everything, all while arrogantly proclaiming to have the answers and that they know everything. They are the ones who make a game of mocking parents of vaccine injured children, then they become all offended that the parents fight back. They are the ones who cling so desperately to flawed epidemiological studies, and laugh that parents of vaccine injured children have no science to defend their hypothesis. And, when the parents offer a hypothesis, they refuse because they claim that there is no more to learn and that they already know what will be found. The same ones who laughingly mock a father who writes about his son’s first words in 5 years and how that made him feel.

And so I found myself clicking on a link that one of my Facebook friends sent me. Lo and behold, it was an article from a well known false skeptic, Kim Wombles. Yep, I’m sure you’re all familiar with her.

After reading her article titled, “The Reinforcements That Community Brings: Anti-Vaccine Narratives Provide More Drama,” I spent some time laughing uproariously…I mean, it tells you everything you need to know about bias and how illogical her article will be when she starts it off in the title with an insult and a generalization fallacy. I mean, my goodness, calling someone anti-vaccine and full of woo does so much to help build community and promote meaningful discussion, don’tcha know? So, I will point out what’s wrong with her article and then discuss what was said in the comments.

So, the basic essence of her article is that the online autism community has polarized itself. For the most part, I agree. People have taken sides in this discussion, and all sides think they are the right one. Though, personally, I don’t feel I’m on anyone’s side but the children's. I don’t agree with many of the things AoA does, and the same goes for the false-skeptics. So, I guess you would say I’m somewhere in the middle. That doesn’t matter to Kim, though. I’m either with her or against her.

However, there is more to what Kim is saying here. She has already decided that she is right and that everyone who doesn’t agree with her paradigm is wrong. She blithely continues to say that those that she has determined are wrong are not open to new evidence that contradicts their world view, so they should not be reached out to; i.e. they should not be made part of the community. Because she says she is “science-based,” then, to her, that means she is superior to those she opposes. So she should try to reach (read that as brainwash) those who are on the fence or who are moderate. These people can be persuaded to not think critically about what the Pharmaceutical industry publishes and tries to disguise as science and that they should believe everything they are told without question.

In other words, she has already made it clear that she is not open to new evidence that contradicts her world view. She creates polarization by claiming that those who do not agree with her are anti-science, anti-vaccine, or a dumbass, a tactic we see all to often in the false-skeptic community. She doesn’t even acknowledge that the tactics she is using are what created the whole polarization in the first place (“My child was injured by a vaccine.” “Correlation is not causation, so stop spreading anti-vaccine fears, dumbass.”). She accuses those who disagree with her of being like a religion who hold fervently to their beliefs. But, if you read this blog post carefully, you’ll clearly see that her and the rest of the false-skeptics are as well. I’ll get to that in a minute. But first, I will continue with my analysis.

She continues with a brief discussion about how Jamie Bernstein and Ken Reibel were removed from the recent Autism One conference. She goes on to say that the removal was due to Ken being recognized. Of course, I will give the benefit of the doubt to Ken and Jamie in that that may very well be how they perceived what happened because of their personal biases. However, the reality is quite a bit different than the perception, and this is something that Kim, I think, deliberately failed to disclose in her article. By their own admission, Ken and Jamie were breaking the rules of the conference by taking photographs of the event. The Autism One terms and conditions specifically state that no photography is allowed. Don’t believe me? Read the link. But Kim didn’t provide that info, did she? Reading her article, she leaves the impression that what Autism One did was wrong, and that those on “her side” wouldn’t do anything like that. And yet, she leaves out the part about the rules and how they were broken. Then, she claims that the “Science-based” side is more reasonable, and I tend to agree with this statement. However, it’s pretty clear that she, and those she associates with, aren’t actually science-based. I tend to think of people like PassionlessDrone as being someone who is actually science-based. Again, more on that in a moment.

Then she discusses (or rather complains) that “anti-vaccine” narratives are compelling, and that is what is causing their ranks to swell. She goes on to discuss how some at AoA complain about how those that claim to be “science-based” just try to discredit the speaker and don’t really address the science. I will step up and agree with Kim here and say that AoA does this too. And they can be pretty mean and nasty about it, just like Kim’s “science-based” nutjobs can be. She then makes a very curious statement.

“I don't know of any evidence-based individuals who have alleged that Wakefield is a nut. Dishonest. Unethical. Fraudulent. Greedy. But not a nut. And we really shouldn't care if McCarthy is a slut (not a phrase I've seen used against her unsubstantiated claims, by the way). If her claims are backed by evidence, whether she gets around or not is irrelevant. I think the argument has been that she's a Playboy bunny who doesn't know what she's talking about (and since she thinks antifreeze is in vaccines, it's fair to say she doesn't), but that's not the same as claiming she's a slut and should be ignored.”

Really? She hasn’t? She’s never seen Orac make statements that essentially boil down to, “She showed her bewbs, and I’m a doctor…you gonna believe her over me?” Or, maybe she’s seen people call her a killer? Naw….her “side” never does that…

Then she mentions how AoA focuses on Thorsen and his role in the extortion of a few million dollars, and then AoA’s focus on the fact that Seth Mnoonkin is a recovering heroin addict. Here’s what she has to say:

“The first is relevant and it's fair to ask what role he played in the studies themselves; the second is an actual attempt at an unjustified discrediting.”

And here, I will agree with her 100%. Nothing bad to say to this statement.

But then, she screws up the whole thing with this:

“How do you reach parents to show support and get there before those with more compelling, dramatic explanations convince parents that there are answers for why their kids have autism and that they can be healed if you just try the right mining chelator or other quack treatment? How do we create a vibrant, supportive community that lets parents feel comfortable in the absence of certainty while having the courage to withstand the temptation of promises of instant cures? How do we make our narrative more compelling than the vaccine-injury's?”

So, in other words, how does she prevent parents who have children who suffered from a vaccine injury from telling their stories? How does she censor their pain? How can she deny that these children exist and help these poor, stupid parents who are questioning vaccines understand that all of these stories that these crazy people talk about are all fake and never happened (Disclaimer: I am in no way implying that these questioning parents are stupid, just that this is how Ms. Wombles is coming across)? She talks about creating a vibrant, supportive community, but not if she calls you a dumbass…then, she is not interested in having you in her community. Then, she makes a wonderful generalization fallacy, i.e. that if you believe that vaccines cause injury, then you must be someone who uses mining chelators or quack treatments. And her final question, how to make their narrative more compelling? As long as she continues to treat those she disagrees with the way she does, she won’t. As long as she continues to claim that the vaccine injuries that these children experienced are somehow not real (oh, I know, if she ever reads this, she’ll say that she never does this. She’ll say that she believes that vaccine injuries do exist….but it didn’t happen to their kids), then it looks like she is in denial and is afraid of these parents and children. That does absolutely nothing to help her cause. In fact, this is the main thing that turns people away. The mocking, the ridicule, the snide comments about these parents who have vaccine injured children…yeah. That would compel anyone to join her “side.”

Now, onto the comments. I’ll begin with the one that caught my attention; a comment that a friend of mine left. He pointed out that Kim was being a bit hypocritical in her article (she was) and that it was downright funny that she claims to be science-based. She then returns, with no evidence, that he must be anti-vaccine. My friend responds with the observation that since he doesn’t agree with her, then in her book, he’s anti-vaccine, and such a comment without evidence is preposterous (it is…but I’m paraphrasing). She then accuses him of being someone else (without evidence again). At this point, I jump in (under a pseudonym, but I wasn’t really hiding who I was), saying that, using her logic, since she thinks he’s an anti-vaxxer, he must be so. And, since she thinks he is this other person, then he must be so. His next argument boils down to the fact that scientists don’t make definitive claims in the absence of all the relevant data (again, I’m paraphrasing). What follows is a highly entertaining exchange that I will copy here for your perusal.

This comment is from some nameless moron (Well, maybe he has a name, but he was so boring that I’ve forgotten it):

A comment like that is simply a twisted version of reality. Of course, scientists accept the possibility of being wrong, unless they're not wrong. How can they tell? Its called data. Scientists don't wonders if Newton's theories are wrong, every time they perform an experiment. They don't wonder if the laws of chemistry will hold up today. These are things that are known, and they are not going to be questioned, nor will any scientist consider the possibility that they are wrong.

This is typically a subterfuge to allow all manner of crackpot ideas in, because if they aren't taken seriously, the accusation is leveled that one is not being "scientific" by considering the possibility. However, that's not true. Science requires evidence and the evidence doesn't support the opposing views of the anti-vax crowd. Now, if someone can produce actual evidence and not simply anecdotes, or claims that others don't know what they're talking about, then perhaps there would be a basis for a scientific discussion.
So, your comment is disingenuous, since it isn't about producing additional evidence. You can argue that I don't know you, or don't know anything about you, but I don't really need to, since you've clearly identified the kind of person you are in your posts. You aren't interested in having a realistic discussion .... you simply want to post your agenda and "laugh" about it. Well, I hope you're amused, because anyone that thinks any of this is amusing, is truly the fool.”

You all know me…I so enjoy responding to comments like this:

Hmmm...what agenda? The fact that he was pointing out that Kimmie was being a hypocrite means he has an agenda? Brilliant!!

And I think you're missing the point. No, I'm are missing the point. From what I can gather from your post, you are saying that science has looked at all possibilities with vaccines and autism and that vaccines do not cause autism. This is an unscientific statement simply because of the fact that a scientist will not make such a claim without all of the evidence. If they haven't actually studied the children who are alleged to have developed autism from a vaccine, then the data is incomplete. No subterfuge involved in that whatsoever. Maybe a bit of paranoia on your part, though.
The amusement, in my opinion, is that those like Kimmie who claim to be science based and who then laugh about these parents who claim that their children were injured by vaccines, dismissing their claims without reviewing all of the evidence are the true fools, and that they deserve nothing but the same scorn and ridicule that they aim at those they disagree with.”

At this point, Kim jumps in with a comment that completely confused me:

“"Kimmie?" Ouch. I'm mortally wounded now, especially given how you read the piece on my personal blog about name-calling just a couple days ago. :-)

Yeah, yeah, we got it, you don't like me. I deserve your scorn. What's new?”

I hadn’t read her personal blog. I expressed my confusion, and she makes a childish innuendo about keeping secrets and that the post was a good one with “lots of flowers".” I told her she was being childish and I had no idea what she was talking about. Here’s her response.

Ah, here and I thought I was protecting your privacy and all.

Nah, I'll just share one of my favorites. Mint is lovely, isn't it, when it flowers?

Not only do you have the lovely scent, all the little blooms are gorgeous, and the bees and other insects love it. They flock to it.
Listen, you've obviously got some temper issues and I'm sure it's a tremendously liberating feeling and all to let that rage spew over and everything, but maybe you could go stand in a corner and tantrum instead? It'd probably be more productive for you. I hate to think of your blood pressure rising over my posts.

See, I've read rants like that before. A lot. And since you're not going to offer anything substantive other than to ratchet up the name calling and vitriol (nice work), then what's the point? Those kinds of rants don't work to get me irritated, just as the condescension you offer doesn't move me.
Didn't you get that's the whole point of this post? Neither side is going to be moved by the other side. Both sides have people on them who really despise the other side. We know that; it's not new. It's not changing. So why keep doing it? Unless it's nothing more than a solitaire game to you?
If you've read my first blog and have history with me (and you made that abundantly clear in what you've written here), then you know that I always from the get-go acknowledged vaccine injuries occur and that we need to do everything we can to make sure vaccines are as safe as possible. Why I even had someone (ahem) share his story because I think it's important people don't forget that vaccine injuries do happen.

What cannot be denied is that people change their memories, usually unintentionally, to match their current belief system. Memory is malleable. I'm not interested in arguing personal narratives (says so right on my blog on what I believe and why); with memory being so faulty and with the internet allowing records of changing stories, it just isn't worth it: the truth can't be figured out at a personal level. Not after the fact, and maybe not even during. Our biases cloud everything. At least when we're talking about how two events relate. We're good at making illusory correlations. Really good. Hey, maybe I'm even doing it now!

So, instead I'd prefer to focus on the scientific studies that show no evidence of a link between autism and vaccines. If 15 cases of

intussusception can be detected and linked to the first rotavirus vaccine through the VAERS reporting system, causing the vaccine to be taken off the market quickly, then why do you think a link between vaccines and autism couldn't be found?

Much more productive than rants and name-calling, especially without any substantiation. Of course, I'm a hypocrite, so what do I know?”

Wow! So much to pick apart there. I’ll leave my rebuttal for a moment and point out something. Notice how she complains about ratcheting up the vitriol and name calling? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

So then, I explain that my calling her “Kimmie” was not done consciously, especially since my wife’s first name is Kim (well, Kimberly, but she goes by her middle name), and I call her Kimmie to tease her sometimes. Writing that in my earlier comment was entirely unintentional. Then, it occurred to me that Ms. Wombles was so paranoid that she had to go and track down and see who was commenting on her site and where they were commenting from. So, since I accessed the site from work, and someone from where I work likely accessed her site, then that person just had to be me. So, I gave her a brief explanation about how many corporate networks run, and that there are thousands of people who work in my company, and any one of them could have accessed her site and it would look like they were accessing it from one location. Such simple things are obviously beyond her. Then, I explained that what she perceived as a rant (she’s so touchy, natch…going off half-cocked at the littlest thing) was just me being highly entertained by her stupidity.

But what makes me laugh the most at her comment was when she started talking about rants and name calling without substantiation. Look above to see her rant, and look at my earlier comment to see how I substantiate my name-calling (I explain why I think they are fools).

So, then the idiot from earlier accuses me of being arrogant:

“Sorry, but you're simply an arrogant fool. I have neither the time or patience to waste with someone that understands science so poorly and thinks the whole issue is simply amusing.

This is an unscientific statement simply because of the fact that a scientist will not make such a claim without all of the evidence.

.. and you think telling stories is evidence? This is precisely why such discussions are a waste of time with people like you. You think that it's productive to keep pursuing avenues of investigation for which no connection exists, because you stubbornly assume that a connection must be there. Instead of recognizing that there is more to be learned, you insist on the validity of data which doesn't exist. The scorn and ridicule isn't based on disagreement. It's based on someone using pseudoscience as a vehicle for introduce crackpot ideas and even worse .... promoting agendas where people can profit off of others desire to obtain help and/or solutions.

Just as the point of Raun Kauffman mentioned earlier. Here is an individual that has supposedly found a solution, but instead of sharing it, seeks to personally profit from it. A series of thousand dollar seminars .... just as if he were telling you the secrets of buying real estate. Yeah, that's real credible.

If you truly had evidence, then you'd present it (and not simply more anecdotes from others that think science is wrong). If you truly had evidence, then you wouldn't be laughing about it and think its hilarious that others don't know the "secret". Instead, by your mere attitude, I can already tell that you're simply someone that likes to blather on and on about what science is, or should be without actually being capable of contributing anything yourself.”

Hilarious, yes? I take great glee in pointing out that he’s the pot calling the kettle black, and that he is making a claim (vaccines don’t cause autism) without looking at all of the evidence. You know, like the kids who actually got sick?

The rest of the article and comments are all there for you guys to enjoy. Do feel free to give her a piece of your minds.

Now, lets go back to what I was talking about in regards to her comment concerning religion. I’ll approach this from a different angle, though.

So, the scientific consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism, am I correct (well, no, not entirely, but let’s say yes for the sake of argument, shall we)? Anyone who disagrees with that statement, or is not completely convinced, is obviously anti-vaccine, and I am certain that you all would agree with that statement (using their logic, mind you). So, that would mean that the scientific consensus is considered “Orthodox” or “mainstream” and those that disagree with this orthodox view would be in variance to that doctrine.

So, what would you call someone who has an opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system?

A heretic. And how would those who follow that orthodox view treat those who oppose them?

Well, in medieval times, heretics were usually executed. Then, they were outcasts of society. So, tell me how many times you all have heard the false skeptics say that parents who believe that their children were injured by vaccines should be separated from society? Or put on an island somewhere so that they could die out? Or that they wish we would all die of diseases?

The false skeptics worship Science. They give it an almost mystical reverence, and they rarely question any dogma that comes from their hierarchy. They cling to it and are so devout in their true belief and conviction that anyone who questions their God is treated with utmost derision and scorn. Isaac Asimov said it best:

“Endoheretics are appropriately credentialed scientists. If the person is outside the scientific community or at least outside of his specialty, he is an exoheretic. If a person is an endoheretic, he will be considered as eccentric and incompetent, whereas if the person is an exoheretic, he will be regarded as a crackpot, charlatan, or fraud.”

Sound familiar?

Why do I point out her hypocrisy, you ask? Because hypocrisy is dishonesty in the purest sense of the word. She is being dishonest to herself and her readers, and those people she is trying to win over to her “side” know it.

I admit that sometimes I do suffer from hypocrisy; we all do. I usually try to catch myself and apologize when I do. But, the difference between me and the rest of the false skeptics (except for Orac…you know where you stand with him, I’ll give him that) is that I will let you know where you stand with me. I make no secret about my opinion of you, and you’ll always know where you stand with me. I won’t try to lull you into a false friendship, then secretly laugh behind your back about your beliefs or about how you feel when something good happens to you. If I don’t like you, you will know it because I will tell you. I will stand behind my beliefs and I will let everyone know when I change my mind. I don’t profess to know all the secrets. I don’t profess to have all the answers. I accept that I could be wrong, and when I find enough evidence that convinces me of that, I will proclaim that to everyone publicly.

Now, I ask you this; do you see the false skeptics do this? Do they profess to have all the answers (“The Science has spoken!”)? Do they accept that they could be wrong?


  1. LOL...well done!

    I think the confusion in Kim's article comes from the fact that she still thinks you live where you used to live.

    Not thinking, I clicked on a link on another site that brought me to her blog, and I didn't have my filter enabled. So, she was able to detect where I was accessing her site from. And, since I live in the same area that you used to, that means that I must be you! And, of course, everyone who works at your company who checks her site must be you as well. How psychotic! Is she unaware that it's possible that more than one person who lives in an area could be interested in this debate?

    How's your new house, btw? I haven't heard from you in some time.

  2. Yeah, I thought the whole thing was hysterical.

    I'd better tell one of the guys up here at work who also has an autistic child that he'd better not go to her site, or she'll think he's me, too.

    I know I shouldn't write about her and Orac so much. I can't help it, though...they make it so easy! But, you know what? I do feel somewhat better in the knowledge that I no longer obsess over these things anymore. If something catches my interest, or if I find something too irresistible, I'll blog about it. But I don't do it obsessively anymore. I don't feel compelled to write about how much better I am than those who I disagree with. I mean, many times a day does she blog? How many blogs does she have? Where does she find the time...

    (Yeah, I know...I just wrote about how much better I am than she is...take it as a joke, because that is what it was)

    The new house is nice, though we have a problem with insolation. The AC has been running almost constantly, and our electric bills are through the roof! I just haven't had the time to find out where I need to insolate, though. I went ahead and got a window unit for one of the rooms so that the family can hang out in there and stay cool during the summer...I have a feeling it's going to be a scorcher.

    Other than that, just been busy at work, my friend.

  3. Wait a minute! I just realized something.

    This is kind of like the "I Am Bonnie Offit," think that the false skeptics were going on about. Wow!! This raises the hilarity to a whole new level.

    I AM MySocratesNote!!!

  4. You're clearly both a raving lunatic and a danger to society.

    It's in our best interests to have you Baker Act'd in order to protect the children from your dangerous and contagious free thinking.

    How dare you disagree with the obviously well trained health care professionals who frequent blogs during business hours?

    Don't you understand? They're so much smarter than you that not only do they have the time to make the world safer one vaccine at a time, they also have the time to play Bejewled AND pick your posts apart via critical analysis AT THE SAME TIME!

  5. MightyMorphingMySocratesNoteJune 6, 2011 at 7:26 PM

    No, you cannot be MySocratesNote, because that is me. Or is it? I'm so confused.

    You know what would be a fun and humourous diversion? I could open a server and allow users here to post on her blog under their names. It would show all of them to be located here. Then, we could all be MySocratesNote!

    Ah, such entertaining thoughts.

  6. Hellbilly,
    Oh, I know...I mean, how DARE I question them! What was I thinking? Oh, I should also accept all of their insults and ugly comments without question or complaint. And, I'd better not insult them back...that's just wrong.

    I should just accept the fact that they are scientists despite the wildly unscientific statements and attitudes they present (insert eyeroll here).

    MMMSN (since it's just too long to type), while it would be highly amusing for the troll giggles, I'm not sure it is the mature thing to do. You see, Kim gets highly offended when someone insults her...but it's ok for her to insult others. And besides, I'm not sure she has the mental capacity to understand that she is being ridiculed. Also, her lack of humor is well known, so I'm quite certain she'll go into histrionics and wail and lament about how eebil those mean old anti-vaxxers are. And oh, the tears will flow like rivers, even though those with whom she is so chummy with do things quite similar.

    I don't know...I'll keep it in mind.

  7. IAmMySocratesNoteMaybeJune 6, 2011 at 8:24 PM

    Hmm, I think you may be onto something there. Alas.

    Oh, btw, I actually DID read the article she accused you of looking at. She said is was good, which is a lie. It is just her wallowing in narcissism and bitching about all of those mean insults being hurled at her. Really, the woman acts like a child.

    Don't ask how I was able to stomach my way through her article. Let's just say that I now own stock in Pepto.

  8. Even with the Pepto, you've got a stronger stomach than I. The woman is extreme.

    But thanks for the analysis :)

  9. I just read his comment over at Kim's article.

    Ok mate, get ready for a lecture. I'm writing this here because I know the tosser likes to lurk here sometimes, and I want the little fucknugget to read this. And I want your other friends to chime in as well.

    I beg you, please, please start the litigation process. This arse-bandit will continue to harass and stalk you and others if you don't do something about it now. You have enough to press charges, and I cannot comprehend why you didn't go through with this earlier.

    You know I love you and your family, mate. You are truly a kind, gentle person, and you were reluctant to put the little arsemonger through the ringer because you were concerned about his family. I admire that, I do. But he posted information about where you work. He's been posting information about where you lived. This is dangerous and obsessive behaviour, and if you don't put a stop to this now, I fear for you and your family. Truly, my friend, I'm scared for you.

    Do it, Craig. This bag of shit needs to learn a lesson!

  10. LOL...bud, your Cockney is showing. I've never read you when you were mad and it's hilarious!

    And just what can I charge him with right now? So he posted my work info...and? I posted there anonymously. I assure you, that is not enough for me to do anything to him legally.

    I do have a nice, running tally of every comment he's ever written to me or about me on every site I can find. I also have lots of screenshots in that little file of mine (well, not so little's gotten quite big). Trust me...he'll screw up. And when he does, I'll be all over it like white on rice.

    But right now, I'll let him be. I'll give him the opportunity to back off and apologize.

    I'm curious if his wife knows he does things like this. I wonder how she would feel knowing that his antics are scaring someone's family and that they had to go into hiding to avoid his stalking and harassment. How would she feel if something like that happened to her and her family?

  11. Ken wrote this response in the comments of an article I posted a while back...why he didn't post it here, I don't know.

    ""By their own admission, Ken and Jamie were breaking the rules of the conference by taking photographs of the event."

    Not true. I was not taking photographs, and I broke no rules. I registered in March under my own name. I paid my $25, and produced my receipt. My conduct was not disruptive, and nobody alleged that it was disruptive. Teri Arranga could not tell me why I was being ejected. Do you know something she doesn't?

    In the four hours I spent at the conference, I saw multiple instances of attendees taking photographs. The signs posted throughout conference referred only to video and audio recordings. Jamie took two photos, and she deleted them from her memory card in front of Teri Arranga and the Lombard officers. One photo was of the Generation Rescue lounge, and the other was of a sign at the hyperbaric oxygen display. But Teri did not tell Jamie she was being ejected for taking photographs. If that's what she told police, then that information will be in the official police report.

    I never admitted to taking a photograph. I did not take a photograph. If you are truly middle of the road, this might be a good opportunity for you to question why Generation Rescue is afraid to allow skeptics to attend their conference.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment."

    I'll respond to this later, when I'm not busy.

  12. "...why he didn't post it here, I don't know."

    I tried to post in here, then I flubbed the Capcha thing and my comment disappeared. Luckily and copied it before attempting to to post. Can't be sure, but I probably typed "my-" into the Safari URL window, which brought up an earlier post.

    And now you know. ; -)

    I look forward to your explanation for why I was kicked out of AutismOne. I'm sure it will be the first reasonable explanation I've heard from "your" side.

  13. Ah, my are far more forgiving than I. And I'll have you know, no one can tell someone to piss off better than a Brit, good sir.

    At least do what I suggested to you. Either let me take over and you go into hiding, or quit blogging here and go into hiding. Stop logging onto their sites at work, and use the proxy server I have setup for you over here so that you can remain anonymous. These people obviously have such deep-seated paranoia that they have to check to make sure who is reading their public domain site. I mean, it could be a spy or something.

    And, speaking of the little git, I see he has posted some of his usual knob-rot. Has it occured to you, moron, that because of your constant harassment of others and your creepy, sexual obsession with those you have deemed your opponents, that you wouldn't be welcome? Oh, wait...nevermind, no it wouldn't. They had every right to kick your sorry arse out of the conference, and I say good on them! And, would you look at that? It even says so on their policy page. If you lost your admission fee because of your own stupidity, then it's your own bloody fault! Quit acting like a fucking pansy and man up to your actions.

    Does it give you some weird sexual rush? After you intimidate and harass these people, do you crawl off in your little hole and do a little hand-shandy? Have a little wank? Does it get you off? Maybe that's the only way you can get your little porker up, eh?

    Your companion was breaking the rules. Mayhap I should copy those here for you?

    "No recording of any type is allowed without prior written permission. Any individual using audio, video, or other recording or photographic devices without current written authorization from the conference organizers may be required to leave the conference"

    So tell me, did she have prior written permission to take pictures? Yeah, I didn't think so.

    Fucking wanker

  14. Gambol...strike one. Please tone it down, bud (though, I will admit...that was fucking funny!).

    Ken, the essence of Gambol's comment is correct. Jaime was taking pictures without authorization, and the rules state that violation of that policy will result in removal. I let your comments through because I think it is fair to tell your side of the story. Remarkably, I don't see your "side" doing the same. In fact, every single one of them is caterwauling about how horrible AutismOne was for kicking you out. Not a single one of your buddies mentioned the A-1 policies. While you may have been peaceful this time, you haven't in the past. Because of this, they had every justification for having their "armed escorts" (who were policemen...who are usually armed (duh)) escort you out of the conference.

    Another thing. Yes, I know that you pre-registered and you paid your admission fee. Did it occur to you that some of the organizers may not have known who you were?

    And I'm not at all convinced that your excuse for posting your response to this article in a blog post that's over a year old holds water. In fact, in my opinion, it seems pretty damned cowardly to do that. It looks to me like you were afraid that others would see it and respond to your carefully constructed narrative about how you were wronged.

    And let's not even get into the whole releasing of personal information. I'll be discussing that in a forthcoming blog post. The only thing I will say is that I will ask you one last time to back off of doing that. I am asking you as a fellow parent to think of what your harassment and stalking has done to my family. And I ask you to imagine how it would feel to you if someone was doing the same thing to your family.

    I have a lawyer who is willing to take my case, and I have a LOT of documentation. The only reason I didn't go through with it is because I am reluctant to put your family through the financial hardship.

    So, back off, please. Apologize, and we can both continue with our lives.

  15. Gambol, maybe I should send them an email or something and ask for pre-approval? Especially now that I'm going to be browsing through their various sites to get material for my upcoming post. After all, I need to let them know that I'm me and not someone logging onto their site from somewhere near where I used to live, or that it's not one of the 11000 people who work for my company.

  16. Craig, you should also ask Ken to remove the comment on the other blog where he posted the info about your place of employment.

    At the moment he looks totally guilty as charged to me. And the fact that the camera was not in his hand doesn't seem like much of an excuse for the Autism One fiasco.

    It seems obvious to me that he and his friend went to the conference hoping to be thrown out so they and friends could make a big fuss about how unfair the conference organizers are.

  17. Also, did you know that Kwombles has declared that attaching a comment to an old post is evil?

    She is the authority on all things blogging, for sheer volume if nothing else.

  18. Minority, I don't know if he can remove it. I think he'd have to go through the site admins to do so.

    And, I tend to agree; your assessment is indeed what it looks like he was trying to do. However, I have to be fair and allow him to defend himself and I have to present the side of the story as I see it. I've contacted one of the A-1 organizers to get the whole story, though.

  19. Uh oh, Minority...he broke one of Kim's laws/axioms/decrees/edicts. He must be shunned!!!!

  20. Craig,

    Thanks for asking the AutOne organizers for their side. I've already ordered a copy of the incident report from theLombard Police Department. I'm hoping that Teri Arranga gave a more coherent explanation to the police than she gave to me.

  21. Oy, that man is daft!

    AutismNewsBeat, they don't have to give a reason. They can kick anyone out, even if it's for the simple reason that you are butt ugly. It says so in their terms and conditions. In your case, you've been disruptive and antagonistic in previous conferences, and they were pretty damned certain that you were going to be that way again. If truth be known, I'm quite certain that you were kicked out because you're a total arse and they didn't want to deal with your stink.

  22. My friend, I don't think he'll apologise. This is a case of classic, textbook, sociopathic behaviour. You see, he doesn't think he's done anything wrong!

    Yes, I believe my earlier comment was a bit overboard, and I apologise to you, Craig. Not He deserves no apologies from me.

    I tend to get a bit eggy when I see a friend treated like you have been by him.

  23. "It says so in their terms and conditions."

    These terms and conditions?

    “We reserve the right not to register any individual based on our own judgment. We further reserve the right to ask any participant to leave the conference if that person’s conduct substantially interferes with the participation of others. No audio or video recording is permitted without advance permission from AutismOne staff.”

  24. Interesting how you leave the parts out that pertain to what you were doing. Quite shady, if you ask me. But then again, from what I know of you, that's to be expected.

    Here, I'll even help you out. I'll post the entire thing for you so that everyone can compare.

    "We reserve the right not to register any individual based on our own judgment. We further reserve the right to ask any participant to leave the conference if that person's conduct substantially interferes with the participation of others. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, religion, gender, political party, or sexual orientation.

    General Admission Materials and Processing fees are non-refulndable and non-transferable. Dinner tickets are refundable if request is made before Saturday May 28 and before tickets are picked up with badge at the conference. Dinner tickets are transferable.

    CME program credits are refundable 30 days before the training if requested in writing. After 30 days refunds incur a $50 cancellation fee.

    All children must be accompanied by a responsible adult at the conference.

    Name badge must be worn at all conference events. For Saturday Night Dinner, your name badge must be presented with your ticket, you don't have to wear your badge with your evening dress.

    No recording of any type is allowed without prior written permission. Any individual using audio, video, or other recording or photographic devices without current written authorization from the conference organizers may be required to leave the conference.

    Solitictation of conference exhibitors and speakers is prohibited."

  25. Strange that you leave the parts out that pertain to what you were doing. Very shady. Then again, from what I know of you, that's to be expected.

    How about this; I'll post the entire thing for you so that everyone can compare.

    "We reserve the right not to register any individual based on our own judgment. We further reserve the right to ask any participant to leave the conference if that person's conduct substantially interferes with the participation of others. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, religion, gender, political party, or sexual orientation.

    General Admission Materials and Processing fees are non-refulndable and non-transferable. Dinner tickets are refundable if request is made before Saturday May 28 and before tickets are picked up with badge at the conference. Dinner tickets are transferable.

    CME program credits are refundable 30 days before the training if requested in writing. After 30 days refunds incur a $50 cancellation fee.

    All children must be accompanied by a responsible adult at the conference.

    Name badge must be worn at all conference events. For Saturday Night Dinner, your name badge must be presented with your ticket, you don't have to wear your badge with your evening dress.

    No recording of any type is allowed without prior written permission. Any individual using audio, video, or other recording or photographic devices without current written authorization from the conference organizers may be required to leave the conference.

    Solitictation of conference exhibitors and speakers is prohibited."

  26. So what's your point? Which rule did I break? Was I soliciting exhibitors? Not wearing my name badge? Taking pictures without permission?

    What was I doing wrong?

  27. Bloody Hell, the man is bent! I thought it was all an act, but it looks like he really is that witless!

  28. How did the part about photographic devices get left out of ANB's version of the rules? And why should we trust anyone who goes in for selective quoting to support his position? Not to mention cyber-stalking?

    Not witless. But definitely bent.

  29. When I asked Teri Arranga why I was being ejected, she responded by reading these terms and conditions from what appeared to be the program guide:

    “We reserve the right not to register any individual based on our own judgment. We further reserve the right to ask any participant to leave the conference if that person’s conduct substantially interferes with the participation of others. No audio or video recording is permitted without advance permission from AutismOne staff.”

    There was also some language about not discriminating based on race, religion, etc.

    That was it.

    So I'll ask again: what was I doing wrong? I understand that still photographs were verboten, but what does that have to do with me? I didn't even have a camera.

  30. So Ken, you are agreeing that your companion was correctly ejected from the conference?

  31. I would say she was selectively ejected, since other conference attendees were openly snapping pictures.

    Have you decided why I was ejected, or do you need more time?

  32. "I would say she was selectively ejected, since other conference attendees were openly snapping pictures."

    Perhaps that was because they had prior written authorization to do so? My word, it must be a terrible thing to see conspiracies in everything, right Ken?

    And you continue to amaze me with your lack of ability to grasp the obvious. I truly thought you were just ribbing us, but I now believe that perhaps you might be one sandwich short of a picnic.

  33. Have you decided why I was ejected, or do you need more time? There really is no rush.

  34. It's obvious why you were ejected, you idiot. You've been a disruptive influence at previous Autism One conferences, and it is well within the rights of the conference organizers to kick your sorry ass out. Now, quit sniveling about it and move on.

  35. Nice try, but you're wrong on some key points. I had only been to one previous AutOne conference, not more than one as you allege, and I was not disruptive there. I was admitted with a press pass, and it was in my capacity as a journalist that I asked a single question.

    The reason from my ejection is obvious to me. I'm just not sure you get it.

  36. Were you ejected from a previous Autism One conference? Yes? Then you were ejected from previous Autism One conferences.

    I was there when you were ejected. I seem to recall you very rudely shoving a recording device in front of Dr. Poling in a disruptive manner.

    The reason for your ejection is obvious to everyone. You deliberately went in the hopes that you would be ejected so you could whine and cry about how mean they were to you. And also, because you're an ass.


  37. You are either confusing me with someone else, or you are a liar. I did not shove a recording device in front of Dr. Poling. I was seated about 12 feet in front of him, with a video camera. The camera was clearly visible, and there were no rules against recording in 2008.

  38. One of the things I will not tolerate on this site, Ken, is you accusing others of lying. That's pretty much your defense for everything; if you don't like what's being said or if it doesn't fit within your personally defined norm, you accuse them of lying.

    At this point in time, it's their word against yours. Seeing some of the video of the 2008 conference and speaking personally to many of the people who were at that particular conference, I tend to agree with anonymous's version of the story because it is coroborated by several sources.

    I have to go with the evidence here and say that they are not lying. I seem to recall someone perserverating about how, as time moves on, versions of events change in the minds of the individuals involved. Something about recall bias?

    I've been more than considerate to you here, Ken. I've allowed you to tell your side of the story, but I won't tolerate accusations of dishonesty from you. Understood?

  39. So Craig, are you saying that several "witnesses" have told you that I shoved a microphone in front of Jon Poling's face? I have an audio/visual recording of me asking a question, which clearly shows I was seated some 10-15 feet away. The recording also includes hotel security asking me to leave. Am I imagining the audio/video, "as time goes by?" My version is supported by actual evidence. Your version rests on hearsay and anecdote. No surprise there.

    Which video did you watch from the 2008 conference that lends credibility to the fabricated version put forth by anonymous? The one of me shoving a microphone in Jon Poling's face? Pretty shocking I'd say. How come nobody's ever seen it?

    You might want to try thinking before you hit send.

  40. Wow Ken...3 weeks after everyone quit commenting. Looks like you didn't want anyone to respond yet again. Not surprising since you have a well-known track record of doing things like this, i.e. commenting on a post when you're pretty sure no one else will be commenting on it again. Pretty damned craven, if you ask me.

    And way to miss the point. I was quite clear on what I said, and it's strange that so many people seem to disagree with your version of the events. Multiple people, whom I am positive were there versus your account. Strange how that works, yes? Your version is supported by evidence? So is theirs. I'm sure if they wanted to deal with your odious personality, they will be happy to come forward and deal with you.

    You might want to try thinking before you start stalking people across the internet.

  41. Cue the conspiracy theories that everyone you spoke to at the AutOne conference are all lying about what happened.

    Have any of the readers of this blog ever met Mr Reibel IRL? Is he really this pathetic?

    And it would appear as if Mr Reibel has his panties in a wad. Such a vicious and venomous reaction to someone disagreeing with his post. Cries of lies and dishonesty, when all we have here is a group of people saying one thing, and he saying another.

  42. Craig, are you still getting all of the email alerts regarding this blog? And do you want to continue receiving them?

  43. No worries, my friend. I don't mind continuing to get the alerts.