Hi Tom :) Thanks for the support! Many people ARE neurotypicals but many aren't too.
http://musingsofanaspie.com/2013/01/10/what-is-neurotypical/ I'm fairly sure i am NT but much of what you say people 'all' like would be a nightmare for me, and for many others too. It took me a lot of effort to learn to shake hands with people = more for the why and when than the how. It's an ordeal for me but i'm good at it, allegedly, so that balances with the awkwardness a bit. The only dog i like is one who likes playing "stick" or just running away without needing an excuse just for the pure joy of running and running. Many other people are similar or more extreme and maybe even freak out about discussing any of this. I think the girl in this video doesn't get it right for everyone because there seems to be much more variety in all this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At4Vmo13vJE Regards from Tom :) On 22 May 2014 02:18, anne-ology <lagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Virgil - exactly; > and my thinking as well. > > > > From: Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] non-mainstream > To: users@global.libreoffice.org > > > Tom C. > > I generally don't disagree with you concerning human relations. However, I > don't want *all* of my human interactions to be as emotionally connected as > you seem to imply. > > I have my family and close intimate friends, with whom I communicate > directly, and rarely through e-communication. > > I then I have my church family, with whom I am open emotionally, but not as > much as with my genetic family. > > Then there are e-mail lists of a more personal subject matter on which I > will share more openly. > > But, this is a techno-geek lists. It exists *primarily* to help users learn > how to get the most out of LO. While I appreciate the interaction on this > list, I won't deceive myself into thinking that this is an emotionally > intimate support system. By it's nature, it can't be, nor do I think it is > intended to be. > > Virgil > > > > On 5/21/2014 5:49 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote: > > Anne, Virgil, Tom, > > > > I only just saw this thread, thanks to Anne's restarting it. I wish I > > could follow this list more closely, but I just can't. This thread > matters > > to me, however, so I feel compelled to jump in. > > > > Tom, and all - Your initial post is probably the most courageous, human, > > and gripping thing I've ever read on this list. I've always had a strong > > sense that you are much in touch with your valuing other people, and your > > awareness of them, and of yourseflf. In these things, you are in my > > estimation exceptional. Does this confer a kind of vulnerability? Surely. > > But the show is worth the cost of the ticket. You lead by example, > without > > question, and I love that example! > > > > It is an undeniable fact that we are social animals. Remove that from us > > and we become mute, because we no longer have a common language. We also > > likely become naked (ready for that?) and tool-less (ouch - no > > computers!!!). Going the other direction, a society of robots sounds > > unrewarding in the very areas that typically end up mattering most to > most > > of us, especially at critical times - like the death of a child, or when > > confronting an apparently unsolvable problem, or when encountering our > own > > finiteness. > > > > I don't want impersonal relations. I want people in my life. I can easily > > predict that virtually everyone else does too. People are more than data > > and intelligence and decisions. We have bodies and feelings, smiles and > > laughter and tears. I want all of that. Don't you? I'll bet you do. > > > > Being "different" is an interesting fate, and also as much illusion as > > fact. Two issues arise rather quickly, and they aren't often enough > > distinguished: self-acceptance and acceptance by others. I can (for those > > who are interested) give some exceptionally persuasive references in > > support of the proposition that these two issues are VERY intimately > > related - most particularly in our early years. > > > > When adult, it may be hoped (but hardly always achieved) that we are > > self-supporting enough to be only modestly reliant on acceptance from > > others. But must of us still need at least SOME of this, and fairly > > routinely. I know I do. However, there is this qualification: my computer > > accepts me all the time (well, most of the time). But I never get a hug. > My > > friends, acquaintances, and clients accept me most of the time, too, but > > offer so much more, including hugs. I may spend more hours with my > > computer, but I prefer my friends, acquaintances, and clients. > > > > ...and now to Virgil - I think there is some truth to what you say, and > it > > has to do with this: When dealing with problems, which is what we do most > > of the time here, keeping the level of affect (feelings) produced in our > > brain moderated allows our perceptions and cerebral cortex to function > > unimpaired by the disruptions that are caused by affective excess. But > who > > wants primarily to dialog with a computer? Or a robot? And who wants to > be > > up in their cerebral cortex all the time? Is that what your wife wants > from > > you? Your kids? Your dog? You? You know the answer. > > > > Well, I'm like your dog. I want more. I think that if the truth be known > > we all do. > > > > Yeah, I suspect that more than a few here are exceptionally developed > > relative to problem solving skills, and possibly less developed in > > supportive, rewarding social relations skills. So...with that awareness > in > > mind, let's just work a bit at keep all of ourselves involved here. Tom > D. > > did, when he told his story. Practice make better. > > > > Anne - yeah, you're right. That's one reason why I have never ever used > an > > avatar on the Internet, unless I was doing an investigation of some > > ill-behaved person and needed to move unseen. You can go to my > professional > > website and get my phone number (or nabble, and look at my signature > > block). This is who I am, and it's never been a problem. I strongly > dislike > > avatars. If you cannot stand out where I can see you, you'd better have a > > darned good reason. > > > > If it were me, no one on this list would be here without an email address > > to which a name and phone number was attached. Just grow up, people! > > > > One off-topic final note: I'm not finished with the bullying issue. It > > relates in several ways to much of what I've already said. I'm working > on a > > blog post that will make this clear. I'll bring the link to the list, > when > > it's ready. I've been slow getting to it, as there are many alligators in > > my swamp just now. > > > > t. > > > > On 05/21/2014 01:41 PM, anne-ology wrote: > > > >> On the other hand, this anonymity is the reason these criminal > >> types > >> (hackers, spammers/scammers, ...) > >> are able to roam 'round - with no fears of being caught ;-( > >> > >> For that reason, many of us are wary - maybe even overly > cautious > >> ;-) > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com> > >> Date: Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:25 AM > >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] non-mainstream > >> To: users@global.libreoffice.org > >> > >> > >> On 05/19/2014 07:42 AM, Tom Davies wrote: > >> > >> Hi :) > >> > >>> Last week we had an interesting thread, at least i thought so, about > how > >>> most of us are probably on the aspergers/autism spectrum. About how > that > >>> might actually be a benefit despite being possibly mislabelled as a > >>> 'dis'ability. Sure, for some people it is too extreme and may be > >>> crippling > >>> or maybe it's still a benefit for a lucky few who maybe worked hard to > >>> "make the most of it". Many of us have tiny amounts of it and even > that > >>> is > >>> sometimes just enough to set us outside of mainstream society. > >>> > >>> > >>> At the end of the week i unwisely went to a pub with a friend who > started > >>> pointing out some of my "eccentricities" and physically held onto me to > >>> prevent me from leaving. Errr she's quite a hot chick so it wasn't all > >>> bad > >>> and when we go out i try to realise that almost all the glances and > >>> stares > >>> we get are because of her. Just before disappearing inside myself i > >>> looked > >>> around to reassure myself that everyone around me was different in > their > >>> ways but found just a sea of white faces and all dressed in a very > >>> similar > >>> way to each other = nothing like me nor like almost any friend. > >>> > >>> I'm guessing there are a lot of people here who feel 'outside' of > >>> mainstream society for at least 1 reason or other. Here on the list i > >>> feel > >>> safe because no-one can judge any one else on such randomness as skin > >>> colour. > >>> > >>> Do other people here feel like they are outside of a mainstream society > >>> in > >>> a way that might show up in a photo or face-to-face? I think in a > photo > >>> i > >>> might look too mainstream. A static 2 dimensional image often misses a > >>> lot > >>> of the character of a person. Would it be good to collect a bunch of > >>> photos that show us using LibreOffice? Maybe focussing mostly on the > >>> screen but enough of a hint of you or a friend that the photo gives an > >>> impression of someone interesting. On the other hand maybe it is best > >>> that > >>> we stick with the images we have of each other in our minds-eye? > >>> > >>> I like the idea of a montage of different users so that almost anyone > >>> looking at the montage might recognise something of themselves in one > or > >>> more of the people in the montage. If you email photos to me > privately i > >>> might be able to get a local artist to put it together. I would avoid > >>> naming names unless you specifically tell me to include it. > >>> > >>> The term 'mainstream' is quite flexible and might be very different in > >>> some > >>> countries or amongst some cultures. If we look at the photos used in > our > >>> marketing then simply wearing a suit would make you stand out and it > >>> might > >>> be good to see that sort of thing mixed in too. > >>> > >>> Regards from > >>> Tom :) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Tom, > >> > >> I think there is a faceless anonymity that makes e-communication work. > One > >> reason we are free to share is the safety that comes from being able to > >> close the lid with nobody knowing who we really are. > >> > >> Virgil > >> > >> > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
