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

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Asperger's Syndrome is no laughing matter Volume I (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2730 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

## 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)

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...--  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.-- 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. Rewrite --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..... --
I didn't realise you could be middle class and from Portsmouth, AT THE SAME TIME!! Maybe standards of middle class are lower there... -- 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. -- 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. -- 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 Dramaticas 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 ;) Spang 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

## My contribution (Voting Yes)

As the person who has been speaking to Orion Blaster Ill 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 its 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 dont claim it. A true Aspie would not have coped unless the wrongdoers were punished. In your case it would appear they werent. --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 dont know, Bryant killed 35 innocent people in Port Arthur, Australia, in April 1996. Because he hasnt been co-operative with the psychiatrists trying to find out why he did it, it has been left to these same psychs 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 Orions 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 didnt understand you. This article is doing the exact same thing. I can forgive children for mocking because they dont know any better, but adults are another matter. Its not that we dont get the jokes (for the most part). We just dont like getting laughed AT, because we dont understand why its 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 didnt see any other way to get my message across.

Sir Cornbread - what you are supporting is mocking something you dont 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 wouldnt know about the middle two (what the heck is an emo anyway?) and homosexuals dont seem to mind the word gay anymore.

Sir Brad, I said this before (to either Todd or Orion - I cant 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. Its the old adage. We dont understand, therefore youre nuts! When the reality is you dont 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 arent 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! --User:Anonymous Slashy 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. -- 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. -- 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). Thats 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 isnt 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, thats 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).
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 its nature." — "The Aspergers article here is mockery, not satire." — "We just dont like getting laughed AT" — "what you are supporting is mocking something you dont 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.
-- 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. Rewrite --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. Rewrite --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? Rewrite --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. Rewrite 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 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). Rewrite --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. Rewrite 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 wontt. 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 Im an attention seeker - I am seeking attention for the disability as a whole. Thats not just about me. Its 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. Im all for satire. Im against mockery. Its 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 wont 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 dont (except the genuine Aspies). And until you do, making fun of it is wrong. Because you dont know what youre 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 dont 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 Im 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 thats 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 thats 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 Dont use Aspergers as an excuse to be an idiot. Thats 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 dont understand because you dont even know what youre laughing it! Thats 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

Heres another example of intolerance - that is not noting why this happens. The reason is because the Aspies 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 dont belong in. And its a poor cover for the real intent - to make fun of Aspergers. Just when I am battling a government who doesnt 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 doont buy that argument you dont want to understand AS. As for Google - I dont 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?
Dont patronise me and worse dont try and create something just to ignore what Im 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]
-- 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. -- 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 render a topic off limits because it may offend someone. While the present article is no good, this is a matter of principle. In addition, as you may have noticed, the site has a discernable percentage of active users who have AS who have no problem with any of this. This isn't about Aspergers'. It's about you. And if you don't think I've been fair or whatever, I don't think it's fair for you to come into the site and demand the removal of an article when it's been noted several times that you're free to improve it. As long as it's as funny or funnier, we won't care what you do to it. Since you're apparently unwilling and/or unable to do that, the article will stand as it until further notice. And that's final. --Hrodulf 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See it's this sort of attitude that creates trouble instead of preventing it. Lack of accountability. That leads to the very hypersensitivity you are complaining about - because YOU create it. And people like you. Bill Cosby is a bad example in this case because he made fun of himself. And he got away with it because he understands the subject matter. You do not. Big difference. And a note - the article is locked, so even if I wanted to change it, I can't. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's locked because you vandalized it. Not our problem. And in case you hadn't noticed, there's at least a few Aspie users here who are regular contributors. So much for your argument that this site isn't aspies making fun of themselves.--Hrodulf 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I thought about making an article called Anonymous Slashy because this user has a problem with slashes in his/her browser that turns single quotes into slash single quotes. Then after reading their comments, I decided not to because it might set them off into some sort of rampage like they described an Aspie would do. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a good idea, Orion. Just as long as you concentrate on why it happens rather than who does it (unless you generalise that instead of being specific to AS as an example). Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some PHP and CGI based proxies do that to text for whatever reason. --User:Nintendorulez 19:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You aren't going to find this article on a google search. Uncyc and Google have a bit of an issue. It won't be within the first... several million... results. --User:Nintendorulez 19:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Slashy wrote: "I was diagnosed when I was 32. At that time socially I would estimate I was probably something like 21 at the most. Now Im 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)."
Really, Anon Slash? I would have guessed your current social and mental age as 2. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 19:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If I was 2 would I be able to type on a keyboard? Idiot. Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow! You really got me there! Since I can't possibly respond to that clever witticism, I’ll change the subject: How do you like your User Page? --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## My 2 Cents (CDN)

I have nothing substantial to add to the persuasive arguments that favour keeping the article, and other similarly satirical and controversial ones. I just wanted to throw in a few things.
First, I don't mind if you delete it. I've had a number of things NRV'd during my time here (usually mid-write), and this article has been VFD'd (unsuccessfully) before. Having already argued to keep it then, and having tried to explain it on its talk page, I have nothing left to give. What frustrates me is the amount of complaining, with no real effort to fix it. If it isn't funny, re-write it. Find some other satirical angle that works, and run with it. Or delete it, and redirect to Assburger's syndrome.
Second, the fact that I wrote much of this article (up to the 'related illnesses' section) shouldn't affect people's judgment about it. I acknowledge that not everything I write is quality. In fact, only about 1 in 7 of the articles I've ever written for Uncyclopedia were featured (i.e. I have about 57 mediocre articles taking up space here, and 10 "good" ones). This one is in the class of "57", and it either stands on its own, or it doesn't. Grade it as you will, but leave me out of the equation. ~ T. (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I second the re-direct to Assburger's syndrome. that way, you get the best of both worlds: a comedy gold nickname, and a comedic article. Genius! --no, yuo chat 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is just fine as it is, the Spielberg/Baldwin dialogue is one of my favourite sections on Uncyclopedia and still makes me laugh. If someone takes offence at the article, they do have another course of action that they can take. There's a small box with an X in it in the top right corner of the screen. Just click that. --
Too late, Mhaille. Once the article is seen, the damage is done. Clicking on the X is like locking the gate after the horse is bolted. It won't fix the problem. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case the problem must be related to lead deficiency....about two inches worth injected at high velocity into the frontal lobes should resolve the issue once and for all. -- Your caring, sharing Admins
Now here's another example of cowardice - and the worst sort. Actually suggesting a person commit suicide!! I'm trying not to swear here to retain my credibility level, but you, Mhaille, are disgusting!! That sort of vindictive BS belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica! --Anonymous Slashy
No, YOU have interpreted it as a suggestion of suicide. It was nothing of the sort, I was actually suggesting that trained professionals administer the injection. --
Which is just as bad! You disgust me, Mhaille. Anonymous Slashy 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I be the one giving him this treatment? I know I'm not exactly a professional, and my parole officer says I'm not supposed to even touch guns anymore... but still... --User:Nintendorulez 21:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
At a guess, swimming is not suggested after such a treatment? -- 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not speaking for anyone else here, but as you can see, your comments have led to a lot of overheated reactions. I'm sure nobody actually wants you to commit suicide, but you seem to be so selfish you don't understand that as offended as you are by the Asperger's article, we're equally if not more offended by you trying to tell us what we can and can't say here. So if I can just say that while you have been at the receiving end of a lot of hurtful comments, you brought it on yourself by coming in here with your holier than thou attitude and arrogant belief that you can intimidate us by threating to sue us, vandalize our site, etc. Coming in here with that agenda and expecting not to be insulted strongly is like sticking your hand into a wasp's nest and expecting not to be stung. --Hrodulf 09:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading both, they are both good. ignore the above. Unless you swap them over of course. give complainers soemthing different to complain about. --no, yuo chat 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Could we maybe rename the article to Celebrity Syndrome instead of Asperger Syndrome? Then redirect to Celebrity Syndrome? That way it won't show up on Google for Aspies to stumble over, and it would still be funny. Then add in a template saying that for the "humor impared" like Celebrities, this article is a joke. Just my two cents. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Now this is actually a good idea! Just as long as all the references to Aspergers directly are kept to a minimum (and it should be linked to the Wikipedia article if it has to be linked to anywhere). Like for example a celebrity using it as an excuse when he is in fact making us Aspies look bad - if you get my drift there. Making fun of a celeb's lack of accountability (and there's plenty of that) would work! Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If it were the case that this page showed up on google, moving the page and redirecting would not solve the problem. But....! Someone show me what possible search terms are going to bring up this article in the first 10 pages! I've tried to find one, and failed. -- 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As noted below, try adding a celebrity name (as a lot of freshly DXed Aspies do), in particular the ones that are mentioned in this article. Bill Gates for example. Also try Albert Enstein, Doctor Who and Martin Bryant. 203.17.215.98 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You could change all instances of Asperger to Celebrity, so that a search for Asperger Syndrome does not come up 500,001st on the list on Google found at Uncyclopedia or whatever the Anonymous Slashy did to find it. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok I found this Asperger Syndrome Fred Flintsone to see if the character of Fred Flintstone may have had Asperger Syndrome and Uncyclopedia tops the list. Asperger Alec Baldwin has the Uncyclopedia page in the top of the results, not the top but the eighth result or so. To see if Alec Baldwin has the syndrome. There may be other searches, but we don't know the key words these Aspies are using to find the Uncyclopedia page. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How can we be expected to teach children to learn how to read... if they can't even fit inside the building? 20:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh???? Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

## My Closing Remarks

I would just like to finish this whole thing off by saying that I still can't see how the article is particularly insulting towards aspies. I might just be a hopeless asshole, unable to empathize or see past my own ego (probable), but in no possible way can I see this as being offensive. You said this was mockery not satire. I think this is exactly satire. Granted, this is a basically subjective distinction, but I think it's evident. The point of the article clearly is not to insult people suffering from a severe problem, it's to make a humorous comparison between some aspects of the disorder and behavior that is superficially similar to it. Plus, even if it offends people, that still isn't a good enough reason to delete it, I don't think. The end. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT satire. You don't know the difference between satire and mockery so don't even try. You admitted it yourself - your judgment was subjective. Whilst the point of the article isn't to insult (and I'll take that on face value) it definitely does insult Aspies. Any person in here weho has commented and claims to be an Aspie in my view is not. I have been formally diagnosed by a properly qualified psychologist. How many self confessed Aspies in here can claim that? Aside from me - none I'm willing to bet. It's an insult, plain and simple. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if it were 'mockery' and 'insulting' (not saying it is), I still wouldn't care, if it were funny. And it is. SO that's it. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well start caring, if you are a responsible adult. --Anonymous Slashy
This site is where I come to get away from people like you who want to control me, boss me around, tell me what to do, and generally make my life miserable. As you've noticed, I've been 100% against everything you've said here. That's because this site is one of the few things in life that I have a modicum of control and freedom over, and like I said before, you're not going to take it away. Not from me. Not from anybody else here. This isn't about the article or Aspergers'. It's about you trying to control and intimidate us. And it's not going to happen. I do care. Deeply. About uncyclopedia and it not becoming censored by every vandal anon who comes along with a bone to pick and a jacked-up story about how they're "fighting for the greater good of humanity." You remind me of nothing more than the Westboro Bapist Church extremists, with their obnoxious tasteless publicity stunts and spewing of doctrine so offensive it parses like stand up comedy to me. You aren't going to win, because I will fight you every step of the way and make sure that you don't accomplish one thing here in terms of taking any subject out of circulation. And that's a promise.--Hrodulf 09:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Your judgement is subjective too. So there. --User:Nintendorulez 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## My Final Thoughts

I would be willing to keep the Asperger Syndrome article only if some anti-Semitic humor is added. -- 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We've already go a page on Jews, I think that's the best place for it. --User:Nintendorulez 23:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to ban the person who started this thread. When a bitchy IP complains about and vandalises an article, the proper response isn't a stupid-ass forum post. If it's a shitty article, submit to VFD. If not, quit yer bitchin. It gets my bander all up in a fright. Or something like that. 24/10 02:21

P.S. Asperger's Syndrome is a laughing matter. As are genocide, irrational bans, and torture. Perhaps you were looking for Wikipedia.
It was after that box was put up, too. I support your proposal to ban this person, and I also support turning this topic into an Uncyclopedia is the Worst type thing. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Sick, perverted, and completely lacking a real and proper sense of humour. This site is supposed to be humourous. And responses like this and knowing they existed is the very reason (along with the locking of the article and the talk page) that I did not submit it to VFD. As discussed with Orion on his talk page. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The user was banned, repeatedly. It appears that this thread was started as an attempt to reason with the user so we didn't have to keep banning his/her endless supplies of IPs. But since reasoning with him/her hasn't succeeded, and since it appears it cannot, we should probably just feature the article. -- 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I started this forum topic because the anonymous user kept posting on Todd Lyon's talk page and my talk pages and seemed to have an unlimited number of IP proxies and library computers. Because of that, every IP of his/her that gets banned, they can get four more to use off of the Internet. Trying to ban all Proxy and library IPs is unpossible. I thought if I started this forum topic, to continue the anonymous user's thread here, that others could figure out something to do about it. Yes Todd banned the user countless times, and each time he/she comes back with a new IP proxy. What do you do when banning won't work? I tried my best to reason with the person, and when that failed, I made the forum topic here to see if the issue could be settled in some way. He/she posted so much on my talk page that I had to archive it, because Firefox and IE with Google Toolbar cuts the text of the talk page when someone tries to edit it. I mean the anonymous user was talking about Aspies going on a shooting rampage, and shutting down Uncyclopedia, and admitted to having a history of violence over jokes and mockery of Asperger Syndrome, and threatened to use countless IPs to vandalize and blank articles here. I thought if I reasoned it out with him/her, and later brought it to others' attentions, that maybe we could work something out if I presented his/her argument in the forum and continued his/her topic off of the talk pages, and into a group session because Uncyclopedia is a community and I thought it best to get others involved before something bad happened. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Orion, your behavior in this whole thing has been without fault. It was very noble of you to try to create some sort of mutually beneficial resolution. It may seem like this has become a mess, but it was worth a try, so let me thank you for trying. -- 04:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasnt his fault that this whole thing went pear shaped. But I expected it. Anonymous Slashy 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to find a way to settle this and find alternatives to his/her blanking pages and vandalizing them. When I could not do it anyone alone, I posted his/her views in the forum here, because he/she wouldn't do that. I tried to take some responsibility and show that some on Uncyclopedia take such matters seriously and that we care, even about those who vandalize and blank pages. This person claimed to have had his/her freedom of speech taken away, and I wanted to give him/her a chance to speak their mind to show that we do not take away the freedom of speech at Uncyclopedia. I only wish we could have settled this in some way. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I did say this thing wouldn't help, you tried to call my bluff. I have been proven correct. But Orion, there is a way to settle this. You made a suggestion above, which I agreed to. Do that, and the problem will be resolved. --Anonymous Slashy
Orion, everyone here has seen the negatives only because they saw a threat to their fun. That's why they saw my arguments as negative, and responded accordingly - as I predicted. My first posting was contradictory, correcting some facts. They took it as a negative instead of learning from the facts I was propogating. That's not my fault. In reply they turned on me and I responded in kind. Also something I knew would happen. So your bluff failed. I was right. There was no point because no one (except for you) listened. No one. I gave you something to work with - I agreed with a couple fo your ideas. Are you going to act upon them or not? You can solve the whole thing by doing so. They are all refusing to take the threat seriously - therefore they are not taking Aspergers seriously. That's a fact - and that's dangerous in itself. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll bring this back to the left before I answer this;

The Final Message --Hrodulf 04:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak #3. There's a pattern here, folks! Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Final Message --Hrodulf 12:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## Whining

Whoever put that picture at the top here (and I removed it) needs to go and get some tolerance. I am not whining - I am making a very important point in order to assist this website to see the error of it's ways with this article. Now the IP I am using on this occasion is not a proxy. It's a library computer. Now I admit after the initial banning the week before last I reacted with my gut - but I stand provoked. I have tried to be reasonable and civil throughout this forum discussion, only to get dissed in the very same way I told Orion the VFD would go if I submitted it (which is another reason why I didn't waste my time going down that path).

Fact - Aspergers Syndrome and the understanding of the condition has a long way to go. A lot further than the understanding of any other subject that has been mentioned in here as the subjest of an Uncyclopedia article. The right to mock can only be claimed reasonably with understanding. Right throughout this forum (except for Orion who has at least tried) there has been complete contempt for this reasonable and hardly delusional position I am holding on behalf of all genuine adult Aspies. I have tried to explain the position the best I can, and it's not my fault that most of the contributors here are unwilling to understand and accept the situation that exists - both potentially and actually. You lot are doing nothing to expand that understanding. You are doing the opposite. And that can only lead to trouble for all of us. Anonymous Slashy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And Lyons - don't you even think about reverting this again! Anonymous Slashy 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The {{whining}} hat fits this discussion well. it is a long, continuous, unabating, complaint about one out of around 19550 articles. I've put it back.
The argument that - if you don't understand, you can't mock - bears no water. I didn't know anything about Togo when I wrote it, except that it is some african country. Latching onto the pre-conceptions most people have and expanding or extrapolating them makes articles funny. There are countless other examples. I think Asperger Syndrome is funny, and I know fuck all about it. --no, yuo chat 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think AS is funny - walk in my shoes for 24 hours. Then try and laugh. I'm willing to money on this....you won't. Because you'll see just how stupid your comment above is. Country's are not medical conditions - that's a ridiculous comparison. NEVER EVER mock a medical condition that you don't understand. It's one of the heights of cowardice. Anonymous Slashy 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So it would be alright if an "Aspie" contributed to the article? -- 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A clarification. I think the article Asperger Syndrome is funny. not the actual thing. ps. Countries are medical conditions, have you never heard of the British Empire? Now that was a plague. --no, yuo chat 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Pffft! If we're going to talk about countries being plagues, I'd nominate the United States of America ahead of the British Empire! But we're getting away from the subject so I'll leave that be. Anonymous Slashy 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I think you're on to something here. The United States is extremely unpopular at the moment because its government insists on its self-righteous worldview, refusing to budge regardless of the evidence presented against their worldview, using any means necessary to further their cause, refusing to admit mistakes made in achieving their goals, a arrogant, combative stance toward neutrals, and putting on blinders to everyone else's point of view. You, slashy, have provided a TERRIFIC satire of the United States government in this forum.-- 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Five bucks says the irony was lost on him, and he took it as a complement. --User:Nintendorulez 21:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try and address your previous post one point at a time:
1. Yes, you are whining. perhaps whining implies a certain tone of voice to you, but ultimately you are selfishly complaining about something at length, despite having been told that it's not going to change. Leave this site. Post warnings on your forums, blogs, newspapers etc. about this site. but you're yelling at deaf people as far as this issue is concerned.
• I am not selfish. I am complaining on behalf of ALL genuine Aspies - and their parents. It IS going to change, because it has to. And no amount of warnings on other places is going to stop the problem. And wilful deafness is another trait of a coward.
"You're all cowards!" once against screams the man who won't even give us an invented internet alias to call him.-- 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's no different to just using an IP so why should I? --Anonymous Slashy
Don't use the word genuine. No one on here who is not a genuine aspie has claimed to be so, and some who have claimed to be aspie have disagreed with you, hence you do not represent ALL. Your assumption that they are not genuine is foolish.
I have already debunked those who have falsely claimed to be Aspies and backed it up with proof. --Anonymous Slashy
I'm diagnosed AS. Are you a psychologist, that you are capable of diagnosing who has AS or not? Over the internet even? Are you even aware of how crazy what you're saying is? I have a mild form of it but I do occasionally have a symptom. For example, when I created Forum:Kitting Huffing is no laughing matter to make fun of you, in response to someone flaming me as a joke, because of my AS, I thought they were serious and asked them if they realized the post was a joke. So yes, I have it. I'm not proud of it and it causes me occasional problems, but I'm not a severe case. Apparently, not as severe as you, anyway. --Hrodulf 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You either have it, or you don't, Hrodulf. Frankly I don't believe you. Anyone with such a left wing liberal attitude can't possibly be an Aspie because the lack of truth would kill you psychologically. And you revel in it. A true Aspie wouldn't. The lack of justice would destroy a real Aspie. Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
On behalf of ALL Aspies? Erm, no. You are not the spokesman for Asperger's Syndrome. I have both Asperger's and ADHD. But I know when to take a joke, and I don't see a need to sugarcoat every little thing to avoid offending people. If we took down Asperger's Syndrome, we'd have to take down Niggers Holocaust, and almost every article on this site. This site mocks EVERYONE, not just Asperger's. I'd rather not see Asperger's get excluded from humor. --User:Nintendorulez 20:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As I stated above, Nin, you are not an Aspie. Anonymous Slashy 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am. You don't even know me, how would you be capable of telling what medical diagnosises I do and don't have? Seriously, if you're going to act like that, I suggest you go fuck yourself. --User:Nintendorulez 21:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1. This "error of our ways" as you would have it labelled is not isolated to AS, and in fact is quite mild in comparison to most (if not all) others. I would like to put forward, however, that this is not "the error of our ways," but simply "our ways." In other words, it is the way this site operates, hence not an error, but in fact quite correct.
• No it is not. This site is a parody of Wikipedia. A satire. This article is neither. I have made a number of suggestions - or rather approved a couple of suggestions by Orion to fix the problem at hand.
What would you suggest then? should we parody the wiki article on AS? it seems to promote awareness, is thoroughly factual, and centres around the actual syndrome, so we could parody it by being unfactual, try to promote apathy, and centre it around something else completely. But that would be a bad idea...
See above in a post from Orion. --Anonymous Slashy
1. reasonable implies "able to be reasoned with," and you have been anything but reasonable. You have been beating the same door down over and over and over, and refusing to accept that you've taken the wrong end of the stick.
• Of course I refuse to accept that - because it is just plain WRONG! You lot don't understand what you're dealing with so of course the minute some understanding comes around, you don't want to know just because the reality check spoiled your cheap shots at a disorder which is still struggling to be accepted in the community.
Reality check- uncyc is not reality. you have spoiled nothing that you have attempted to spoil. and again, the article is not about "making cheap shots at aspies," it's about making "cheap shots at celebrities."
Then reword the article and put Aspergers where it belongs - off to the side. The alteration Orion suggested would do the job very well. --Anonymous Slashy
1. Fact- if you had actually read what everyone has been saying, you wouldn't bother using Facts in your argument.
• Fact - I read every word, and there wasn't a fact amongst most of it!
Once again, nobody cares about facts.
As said above, start caring - if you are a responsible adult. --Anonymous Slashy
1. understanding has nothing to do with it. Do you think the writers of Christian, Jesus (and it's offshoots), Catholicism, and etc. really understand christianity? As a christian, I know they don't, and I know they're not attempting to. But that has nothing to do with the price of repentanceeggs. This place is not about developing awareness, improving education, and so on. And it makes no attempts to say otherwise (and plenty of attempts to say so).
• EVERY website plays a part in awareness, education and so on. No exceptions. All this site is provide simpletons with an unaccountable outlet. I can't comment on religion because I'm an athiest so I avoid the subject. I sure as heck don't laugh at it that's for sure. I respect it. I expect the same respect for Aspergers, and this article doesn't give it.
Then shut the internet down! this article is not about offending AS sufferers. It's about Celebrity tantrums. I respect and enjoy the company of my friend who has asperges. This is a parody website. I don't link it with my actual beliefs/reactions around the syndrome. And that's the way it should be.
Well this article does link the disability to all the wrong ideals (I dont know what your personal opinion is and I dont want to because its irrelevant to the matter in hand) which is why at best it needs to be completely redone. --Anonymous Slashy
1. On that note, based on your argument, I would have reason to have a huge network of pages, templates, in-jokes, users and the like huffed. As would anyone else who is christian, jew, german, black, feline, dyslexic, republican, liberal, dutch, american, and the list goes on... This I feel is something that has been said a lot in the above argument, but you seem to be of the opinion that yours is somehow "worse off" or "more important" than the others, based simply on the fact that little is known about it in general. This is a false argument.
• It is NOT a false argument! It's perfectly valid! Do you WANT to see what I mean when I make that point? Surely you're not so dumb as to not see the point I am making? Everything you nominated is taught - in some form - at most schools. Is Aspergers? No! I'm not saying it should, but that's the difference!
1. By genuine aspies, I assume you are implying those aspies who agree with you (i.e. not the others who have posted here), and including those who would go on shooting rampages based on this site? That is hardly fair, and who are you to define what a "genuine adult aspie" is? Asperges ranges in severity, and getting the joke does not neccessarily imply mild.
• The definition - as proven in here - is very simple. The ability (or lack thereof) to cope with criticism. That includes mockery. That is inherent in ALL Aspies. I am yet to see a properly diagnosed Aspie who doesn't have an aversion to some level of criticism, and I won't because it's a key factor to the diagnosis. Therefore, anyone who sees this article and is a genuine Aspie will be offended by it. What may differ is the reaction - whether it be the initial gut reaction from me (changing it and preaching my case both forcefully, and reasonably where I was able to), suicide, or indeed getting a gun out. Amongst a number of other reactions that would number too many to nominate here. That's where the variation in severity exists.
Would someone please write true aspie for me? Please? That has potential fors comic gold.-- 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just make it a redirect to this forum discussion, Brad. Better than anything we could ever write. --Hrodulf 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Done.-- 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You are idiots. Now you are making a personal attack on me. Still claiming to be funny? Im not laughing - and that fact will be added to the legal folder. --Anonymous Slashy
1. I have already addressed the idea of using this site to further your ends of awareness and understanding about AS. Regardless of the nobility and uprightness of your position, this is not the place for it. Go and picket outside parliament, or become an occupational therapist. Don't waste your time and ours on this site.
• I am not wasting my time. I am not going to stop until this article is at the very least altered as suggested by Orion above (and I think drew some support from others aside from me). Failing that, it will be deleted. Even if it takes a court order - and I'll do that if need be.
Talk to Wikia first before you talk about bringing lawyers into this. It's pretty obvious to me you'll be laughed out of the courtroom, so I don't see the point in wasting your money on something like that.-- 15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Threatening us with a frivolous lawsuit shows how delusional you are. Ever hear of the first amendment? A court ruling in your favor would amount to government censorship, which is unconstitutional:
• "The safeguarding of these rights to the ends that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth. Noxious doctrines in those fields may be refuted and their evil averted by the courageous exercise of the right of free discussion. Abridgment of freedom of speech and of the press, however, impairs those opportunities for public education that are essential to effective exercise of the power of correcting error through the processes of popular government."
Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736 (1940).
There goes your lawsuit, I guess. --Hrodulf 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't! You are assuming this would be heard under US law. Sorry - it won't. It will be heard under the law of the country the plaintiff (myself) viewed it in. Therefore the local law applies. And in my country - the first amendment is not a legal defence. There is discrimination law that supersedes such a claim. There goes your defence, Hrodulf! --Anonymous Slashy
Then, as our fearless leader W said, bring it on. I'm a lawyer. And I'm not afraid of you in the slightest. And, for what it's worth, what is going on here is not discrimination. What is going on here is you're asking for special treatment, and not getting it. That is not discrimination. You are being treated exactly the same as anyone else. --Hrodulf 09:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If the special treatment is required (as it is in this case) to achieve a wider equality, Hrodulf, then it IS discrimination. It's harassment on the basis of a disability. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it'd be based on the country Wikia's servers are located in. US? England? One of the two, I think... It's not like another country would have the authority to go and shut down web servers outside their borders. --User:Nintendorulez 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• nuff said...
No, Nin, and there is a precedent for this. The offence occurs in the country where the material was viewed by the plaintiff (myself). It has nothing to do with the location of Wikia's servers. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The pesky thing about the law is you never know with the internet. In this era of universal jurisdiction for so many offenses, it's probably just a matter of time before someone in England could theoretically sue us for offending them. I'm not necessarily in support of that, and in fact favor the repeal of slander and libel laws, but there is a definite political trend towards more laws, and less freedom, and it's a real problem. --Hrodulf 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Get used to it, Hrodulf. The trend is towards protecting the weak (see what I said above). You talk like that's a bad thing - and for that you deserve world wide CONDEMNATION! Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1. This is not a personal attack against people with AS, and I assure you that any victimisation you have incurred would not have come about if you had not acted like a n00b in the first place (which you have not apologised for), and were able to look past/ignore/not care about this, like the rest of us with specific circumstances do.
• The article IS a personal attack on everyone with Aspergers. It's an insult. Pure and simple.
it is not directed at aspies. get over it.
In it's present form, yes it is. And never ever use those three words in my presence. --Anonymous Slashy
1. Lastly, please don't hide behind the facade of "only doing this for the ignorant aspies who may feel wronged by it." admit it: YOU feel wronged, and (as repeatedly demonstrated), there is very little chance that anyone on a fact-hunt is going to come across/take seriously/both this site. seriously. -- 13:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ahem! I have now received a number of emails and PM's on an Aspie forum agreeing with me. I just had to shoot off a reply to a PM to tell a person to hold off and leave matters to me - because he was going to come in here and blank the whole site! And I know he has a proxy generating program on his computer (which even I don't have). This article is causing quite a stir over there - so I am not alone in this. I'm just the only one at the coal face.
You do realize that a massive Aspie attack on Uncyclopedia would be more grist for the Aspie-humor mill, don't you? We would make an article called "The Great Aspie/Uncyclopedia War of 2006" and detail all the battles, and photoshop pictures of tanks with pictures of other tanks on their side. Ask yourself: is that something you really want to happen? --Hrodulf 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me - read what I said again. I headed off that threat! So be grateful! --Anonymous Slashy
That reminds of a line from "Bonfire of the Vanities" an Al Sharpton type character warns to a wimpy prosecutors' assistant that if he fails to bring the maximum charges against a white man who accidentally hit a black teen with his car that his people's anger will rise to a boiling point and when that happens, "I am the one nigger who can keep your lilly-white ass from bein' burrrrrned of the face of the earth!...so to speak." --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 02:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## One more thing

I have not lost. The battle is far from over. And the sooner you lot realise this the better. I am fighting the good fight, and no ISP (especially my own) will deny me the right to pursue the good fight. 74.52.65.131 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(Imperial march plays in the background) --Sir Jam 08:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You lose because you've failed to realize that winning is impossible. If you think we're going to let one self-rightous anon with an obnoxious opinion tell us what we can and can't do here, you're wrong. Period. Erase my {{whining}} tag again, anon, we're all laughing at you. Still think you're winning? --Hrodulf 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's who wins in the end that counts - and that winner will be me. --Anonymous Slashy
What would be the prize if you won? What if there are no winners in this war? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting for the "proxy generating program" to kick in and blank the whole site, should be amusing when he gets banned :-)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Won't happen - see above, lame brain! --Anonymous Slashy
JUst wondering out loud (well here anyway) wether this could become Uncyclopedia's own "Sue you in a court of law!!!!" ;-)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My old employer Dewey Cheatham and Howe can take the case for Anonymous Slashy. Maybe Uncyclopedia can get Mattlock or Perry Mason to help defend us. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If we give in to this guy/girl, what do we do when someone comes along and demands we take down niggerlodeon? We can't let ourselves be bullied by people with an agenda. He/she is trying to make this issue about Aspergers' and the real issue is censorship: he/she is trying to force his/her opinion on us, and that's wrong. We have the right to comment in a humorous fashion on whatever we want and if someone has a problem with that, it's their problem, not ours. --Hrodulf 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be much better if we just said: YHBT YHL HAND to anyone who has these issues? Because, well, this whole site is just one massive Troll really, when it comes down to it. (isn't it?)--no, yuo chat 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't trolling, the point is freedom. Which is a rare commodity in the world right now, and I'm not going to let the tiny shred of it that I have on uncyclopedia be stolen by this anon. --Hrodulf 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So you claim the right to abuse that freedom? Bravo! Ladies and gentlemen - in Hrodulf we have a Jerry Falwell in the making. Or worse a George W Bush! --Anonymous Slashy
Oh the horrors, I couldn't stand it if the world had two Jerry Falwells or two George W. Bushes. Then again, I know Hrodulf is not quite that bad, Hrodulf might actually be another Pat Robertson or John McCain, then again he might actually be another Mel Gibson or Bill O'Reilly as well. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Now look who's calling people names. Nice. Anyway, what you consider abuse, yes, I consider freedom. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you're not going to convince me. And what's definately not going to happen is me allowing you to impose your opinion on me. I don't have to take that here. I have to take it at work, I have to take it at home, and most other places in real life. I don't have to take it here, and I don't take it here. And I sure don't take it from the likes of you. --Hrodulf 09:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
HA! See? You're copping it from all directions! You can't get away from it! Know why? Because it's WRONG!! And I'll play the tune into your face even in here. If you want to get away from it, there's only one way. Admit to yourself you're wrong - if you have balls that is! Orion, believe me Hrodulf is that bad! See above for his more recent postings for why! Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

## Our stand

Slashy, a self-righteous attitude will get you NOWHERE around here. Until you start treating US with some respect, we won't change ONE THING about that article.-- 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I respect people who wont respect Aspergers? Answer me that. I have been taught to treat people the way they treat me. Youve brought this all on yourselves by being so careless and disrespectful. Dont demand respect until you give it first. A good way to start would be to reword the article. --Anonymous Slashy
I'll never respect a power-hungry invader like you who thinks he/she can terrorize us into accepting the yoke of obedience you think you can put around our necks. All Brad was trying to say is that if you'd followed the golden rule, maybe all of this wouldn't be happening. We might even have been more receptive to changing the article. But now we're all just having too much fun watching you have an ongoing aspie meltdown, while making the article even more offensive to watch what happens. You're the best live entertainment we've had here since BENSON. Thanks! --Hrodulf 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hrodulf, the whole reason why Orion started this forum was because I'd called the VFD (the golden rule you're talking about) a sham. And I've been proven right because all you lot want to do is laugh at the expense of the weak (Aspies). That's not on. This isn't terrorism - this is trying to make you lot see reason and someone rewrite the article at best (at worst delete the thing). There is now a whole heap of venting going on at the Aspie forum I mentioned and everyone is willing me to take you lot on in court - along with a number of threats that both myself and the mods are controlling (one of which has already been mentioned in this forum). I think the number now stands at about 25. It was only half a dozen 48 hours ago. You lot are being quickly outnumbered. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, BENSON is still around. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 15:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, he's just not doing any more Village Dump performance art for our hilarity. --Hrodulf 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he is. In his own forum. He's still as funny as ever. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is his forum Crazywordsman? Can you provide us with a link? Thanks. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Forum:BENSON --Hrodulf 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Hrodulf. I didn't read closely enough to realize you were talking about Benson instead of Anonymous Slashy, but Benson's funny, too. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully, this page is the closest we'll ever come to having an Anon Slashy forum. And good riddance. He and uncyclopedia go together like water and cesium. --Hrodulf 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, cool, I'll check that out. --Hrodulf 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There are people with Asperger's I have a lot of respect for. Just not you! BWAHAHAHA! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 03:00, 25 October 2006
If anything, we'll make it worse, which has already started, thanks to you. Like my dolphin picture? --Hrodulf 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So long, and thanks for all the fish! --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll see you at the Resteraunt at the End of the Universe, Orion! hehehe Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See, some jokes are funny. I am glad you caught onto that and it made you laugh. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said they weren't, Orion. Heck I don't know how I would have reacted if I wasn't familiar with Hitch Hikers. That's why I got the joke. Rewrite 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

## Freedom of Speech

Perhaps this is an alien concept to you... but people are entitled to actually write whatever the hell they like so long it doesn't contravene the laws of libel (and since the purpose of this is comedic parody, I would state that this article is protected). Creating terrorist laws? hah, why don't you pause and get a grip on reality please; nutcases blowing up buildings create terrorist laws, not comedic articles on the internet... and as far as I can see, there is a distinct lack of info on killing people in the article.

You see these people that claim various video games inspired them to kill, I'm afraid it's rubbish, in truth, a person is responsible for their own actions, and if you're attempting to claim that a person on the autistic scale isn't responsible for their own actions, then the logical suggestion would be to protect them from society and segregate them, but we of course both know that's crap.

So perhaps you might think about getting off your podium now slashy, and consider that society is better off not being mollycoddled all the time, and exposed to a bit more reality and (GOD FORBID) offensive humour rather than your padded-cell censored view of how the world needs to be. --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Olipro, you proved yet again just how carelessness can lead to trouble - and you cant even see it. Or you dont want to. What do you want, World War 3? I think you do, such is your approval of careless behaviour that offends. In order to achieve peace in this world you have to be tolerant. Yes, even if that includes molycoddling (although there are limits of course). Too bad if you dont like that, because in some cases it is needed for the greater good. That is reality. --Anonymous Slashy
Are you genuinely some kind of idiot? World War III?

You want to see what the net result of your ideas is? go to North Korea or China where they actively censor things from their citizens. Perhaps I should raise the point of why we fought WWI and WWII and why so many people died? Why? for the purposes of freedom... but of course, under your little regime, we wouldn't have that, so either sod off and build your own country, or shutup and get used to the fact that people aren't going to run things how you want them to be. See... I don't agree with what you say, but you still have the right to say it, THAT is freedom... and even though the admins have the power to silence you from the forum and delete all your comments... they're not. welcome to free speech --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the idiot if you think I'm advocating extreme censorship like North Korea and China (and China are getting better with theirs BTW otherwise they would never have got the 2008 Olympic Games - they still have aways to go yet). Censorship is NEEDED - whether you like it or not. A complete lack of censorship is seen by many as open slather to offend (as advocated by Hrodulf) without any thought of the consequences. That sort of behaviour OPPRESSES THE WEAK! Which is no different to oppressing the Jews (see Hitler), the Iraqis (see Hussein), the Croats - I think (see Milosevic) - see? You want me to build my own country? Fine with me. Guess what. It will be a model country for what the world should be and it would be POPULAR! Because of it's level of accountability. You want me to do it? Throw me a few million dollars for the land and the infrastructure and I'll show you. Free speech is a myth BTW. Rewrite04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a nice little idealistic view you've got there, but, sadly, just like Marx's ideas... because of people and reality; doomed to fail.
You can't permit censorship for one, and deny it for the other; if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, and enough people would definitely exploit such a perogative to that end, and hence it is a bad idea, and not implemented in our free countries.
I also note that you're clearly in denial since you seem to have the delusion you could run your own country... as far as I've ever seen, one person dictatorships are horrible countries, but then, I'm pretty sure Hussein though he was doing a great job.
might I also add that you seem to be claiming that Jews are weak... I think they'd be quite upset to know that, as would Croats, and I'm also pretty goddamn sure that Aspies would be a little pissed off if they knew you thought they were weak, so I think you might want to reconsider that.
Finally, it isn't stuff like this that oppresses, it's nutcases with power that do, which is just as well, because if you had any power, you'd have opressed our freedom of speech and deleted the article. --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Censorship requires balance, applied equally. Some things get censored no matter who says it. Other things don't. Very sensible and it protects everyone and allows as much freedom as is reasonably possible for everyone. As far as being a dictator goes - all I can say to that is ROTFLMAO! Because that is so far wrong it is unreal! Aspies are seen as weak, which is why we get targetted by abuse all the time. Just to put that in context. And the reason why stuff like this DOES oppress is because it's allowed. It puts down people who have little or no defence against such things (and they do exist whether you like it or not). It requires responsible people in power to control that - without going too far. As long as it doesn't - no problem. You seem to be scared of the weak (no matter who it is - rightly or wrongly) because you are so determined to retain the means by which they can be oppressed. And I'm talking generally, not just with this article and it's issues (which no longer involve deletion BTW - it's now about redoing it.) Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite right, it requires balance, that is so true, and... you'll be pleased to hear that we have that balance here in the western world; since it is obviously illegal for one to go out and be slanderous or libelous, but on the flipside, a government also understands that works of non-profitable humor deserve to be protected as an institution, and hence, you'll find that the article we have is protected as such. no, we don't even need to game the legal system to get that status, any fresh lawyer will tell you that it's entitled to exist. you think THIS is oppressing the weak eh? then I think you'll crap yourself when you find out what's REALLY going on in the world. But, and I say it again, I think you're full of shit, and I disagree that Aspies think they're weak, but fortunately I happen to know of one, so I'll ask them, and while I'm at it, I'll get their opinion on the article too, so we can see whether the problem is yours because you're a whiny troll, or whether someone else agrees. Oppressing the weak? if that what it comes to, then fuck 'em, you included --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 10:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing: there is an Asperger's wiki. We don't go there and rant and complain about their site content. Please do us the same courtesy. We're a comedy wiki. If you don't like it, go to the Aspie wiki. Or oprah.com. Or anywhere else but here. Scram! --Hrodulf 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not until I get satisfaction, Hrodulf. --Anonymous Slashy
If I can help it, you won't. --Hrodulf 09:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't get no satisfaction, and I'm on my nineteenth nervous breakdown. --
Sorry to disappoint you, Mhaille, but I haven't had one (I've been close twice only and they scare the crap out of me so I avoid them as best I can!). Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should sue that "Shakespeare" bastard. . . look at all the violence and crimethink in his plays! Murder, suicide, poisoning, witchcraft. . . All the horrific crimes committed by theater patrons can be directly attributed to the satanic influence of this evil "Bard." Because I say so, and I also say I have a mental illness and you should believe me because if you don't I'll whine and whine and whine. . . I my cat! 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## Realization

What...the hell?--Nytrospawn 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Forrc (t) 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Fore! Anyone for a good game of Golf to forget this whole situation never happened? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I clicked on that golf link! LOL Yeah Orion, you're probably right - if only this article was written correctly. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

## The Late Hans Asperger For Admin

Score: +2
• Nom and For - For bringing us such wonderful anonymous IPs and whiners in the last two days. For those of you who don't know, he's the pediatrician who first recognized the disease, and it was subsequently named after him. Perhaps maybe the presence of his corpse at Uncyclopedia (preferably around this Halloween) will get us more support for our stand on this whine-fest. Then again, maybe not. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• For - Before the Aspie Halloweinies launch their Tor Proxy programs and blank and vandalize every page on this site on October 31st as they plan to do for a Halloween prank. Imagine an Aspie Humor Site written by Aspies who got pushed over the edge, backed into a corner, and decided to go on an Internet Rampage for revenge at the Uncyclopedia article that dared mock their syndrome. Hmmmm, can someone please make that a front page praody sometime? Thanks. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Orion, will you make up your mind? One minute you're being reasonable - the next you're being as much of a jerk as the other posters in here! --Anonymous Slashy
Sorry the voices in my head made me post that. Are you mocking my schzioaffective disorder? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No of course not, Orion. Sorry if I gave that impression. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

## FINAL NOTE (DOH)

I have decided to leave the whining thing there - because I realised something. There IS whining going on in here. Its just not coming from my keyboard. Its coming from almost everyone elses. --Anonymous Slashy

Well, I'm glad you've finally come to that conclusion. We can all agree there is whining in this thread. As for me, I'm done feeding the troll. It's someone else's turn.-- 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## Sorry to Anonymous Slashy

My schizoaffective disorder is acting up and I am hearing voices and trying to write funny things. I am sorry if I appear as a jerk. It is all of the stress I have gone through the past few days trying to come up with a solution and reasoning to this serious issue. All of this has been overwelming for me, and I am trying my best to get control of my illness. It has caused me a lot of confusion, and stress. So bare with me, I'll try to make adjustments. The way I get over those sorts of things is to joke about them. I hope that Uncyclopedia can settle this thing with you somehow. It would be easier to bring about world peace and perform open heart and brain surgery at the same time, than reason and settle out this issue. I have to take a double dose of my nerve pill and my anti-psychotic pill, just so I can go to sleep tonight. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Orion. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Horatio Double-bloody-motherfucking Christ on a handcart!! Does anybody really care what this obsessive troll thinks??!? He/she/it's obviously some pathetic loser with nothing better to do with it's time than whine for hours about a condition we don't even have proof he has! It's probably some geek running around to various public terminals, making his pointless rut of a life feel better by monopolizing a whole bunch of time from a whole bunch of people. Go whine to your mommy, little boy! Go away and let the real people get on with running this site. I know a hell of a lot of Fatties that have been treated infinitely worse all their lives by thier own family and "friends" for their heinous crime of being genetically predisposed to fat, and you don't hear me whining about that article, do you? No, I took the opportunity to plaster my girlfriend's fat ass on the page, and to twist it a bit toward my point of view. . . which I don't spend hours whining about like it's the fucking gospel. There are millions of sites on the internet, if you don't like this one, (I'll say it in words of one syllable or less, so you can comprehend:) GO. . . THE. . . FUCK. . . AWAY! </outraged rant>  I my cat! 09:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He may be a troll, but I think we're trolling him more than he's trolling us. At least, I am. --Hrodulf 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, but it feels so good to vent, once in a while, and what a target! A self-righteous, fascist, microcephalic control-freak stroking his inferiority complex by trying to push us around. . . I mean, what a total zero! Probably lives in his mommy's basement and whacks off on underwear stolen from the little old lady next door. Awwww, poor widdle man. . . him needs to feel big and stwong, doesn't he? Someone with this bad a case of Reality Deficit Disorder should be in theology. . . or politics. Perhaps he's just disgruntled because Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny won't take his calls. . . In short, what a fucking child. Get over yourself and get on with your life, kid. . . it flies by faster every year, and you never get any of it back. I my cat! 10:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It was enjoyable, because I was standing up for our right to make fun of everything, no holds barred, and I didn't give in one inch to this guy's idiotic demands. It feels good just to be able to stand up for yourself here, even if I can't do it anywhere else. That's why it's so important to do it here, because if they beat you down here, there's really not much left of a person's freedom in this idiotic society. For more of my view on this, read UnNews:Choice of which product to buy last vestige of freedom for most Americans --Hrodulf 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
My reaction is a little less analytical, but for exactly the same reasons as yours, Hrodulf. I just goggled at the sheer mass of time-wastage and got pissed that this little parasite was being treated civilly, given his totally unrealistic, unreasonable attitude. Rude, I'm good at. . . and I haven't even reached mid dudgeon yet, never mind high. I my cat! 10:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I like what you said about his dad should have jerked him off and used the next spooge instead, I'm just usually not that good with the insults. Also, whenever someone insulted this guy he seemed to like it and get all excited and throw it back at us, so I was sort of trying to avoid doing that for that reason. It's no fun if he likes it! But what you said was cool, you got him better than anybody else here. If he reads that, he's gotta be pissed off!--Hrodulf 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I should hope so! Especially since the only time I've actually heard it used (from a father to his own son, no less,) it led to patricide. Ahh, those were the good old days, before anonymous internet usage, where you could just go and pound the righteous shit out of fucktards like this. . . Now all we can do is amuse ourselves at their expense until they dry up and blow away, like the flakes of jism off their mother's ham-slab of a thigh after she's serviced yet another good shippin' crew. I my cat! 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're like Mozart, only with insults instead of music! Awesome! --Hrodulf 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I work with the public. . . mostly elderly, well-off public. Stupid fucking sheeple who wouldn't lift their lazy asses out of a chair if their lives depended on it, who look down on me because their bank accounts are bigger than mine, and that somehow makes them better human beings. , , I have to smile and be polite and helpful to these useless parasites, who'd be living in caves and shitting in their own water supply if it wasn't for people like me, who do the real work. Ah, but the silent soundtrack in my head. . . what I could say if I didn't need to whore myself out to survive in this stupid society. . . Yeah, I get a lot of practise with insults, if mostly sub-audibly. I my cat! 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's an obvious talent and probably can be put to good use here. Especially towards people like our Anon Slashy who need to have their egos taken down from the stratosphere. --Hrodulf 11:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, with 85's like him, they'll just keep re-iterating the same worthless arguments in different phrases. . . Like trying to argue evolution with an evangelist; They may even privately see the logic in it, but acknowledging it in public would destroy the fantasy that sustains them and makes them feel like they're important. Eventually, though, after a bunch of bluff and bluster, he'll get bored and move on, like all bullies. In the meantime, it's our solemn duty to illustrate unto him the finer points of his lack of breeding, genetic and mental deficiencies, probable physical and olfactory shortcomings, possible disgusting habits (I bet he eats his boogers, f'rinstance,) sexual abberations, and. . . well, whatever else we can dream up. It's an exercise for us: The sniveling little toad won't get the point, he's just too stupid. He's an idiot studying to be a moron and failing. . . miserably. Not only is he not the sharpest knife in the drawer, the boy's a fuckin' spoon! I my cat! 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And, YES! I am being intentionally as offensive as I can towards you, you little patch of pond-scum. I figure I should point this out in case you've somehow missed it. Self-righteous little twats like you should be shot and pissed on. . . then your parents should be shot and shat on for raising such a feebleminded, vacuous, shithead. Do you understand? Your father should've jerked you off and used the next load!  I my cat! 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy - anyone want to talk about meltdowns? Here's one right here! ANother candidate better suited to Encyclopedia Dramatica! At least he noticed the civility level - and then decided to turn the level down to zero. And he calls me a time waster. Hello! Pot calling kettle! Decaf! Sheesh! Tooltroll is an appropriate name and then some! Go and abuse the sysops at ED, moron. They could use the target practice! Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He couldn't just be banned he was using tons of proxies. Thus we had to reason with him. --User:Nintendorulez 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## Synopsis

For all those people who've arrived at this forum wondering what was going on and been astonished by the sheer volume of text, here's the briefest summary of the events possible: anonymous slashy, having repeatedly vandalised the page on Asperger Syndrome was graciously allowed a fair hearing by Orion (despite the fact that he/she didn't really deserve it given his actions) and put forward a relatively reasonable argument that people with Asperger's wouldn't be able to get the joke, and there was a danger of someone going on a shooting rampage as a direct result of the article (the word relatively is obviously quite necessary given the somewhat hysterical nature of this original argument) pretty much everyone laughed this off, and slashy then completely undermined his own standpoint by behaving in an utterly intractable manner and refusing to budge an inch on his demand that the page be deleted, thus bringing upon himself the full force of all uncyc users' collective scorn (which is what roughly 90% of the above text consists of) and leading Asperger Syndrome to be nommed on VFH, purely to piss him off. --Sir Jam 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of corrections of fact, Sir Jam. I changed the AS page once only. The rest were reverts with minor edits simply to note the revert and nothing more. The change was to note some facts in order to bring the people responsible for the article to heel. Maybe that backfired - but there was no other way as I knew the VFD process was a sham already (as argued with Orion). Now then, the claim that I undermined my argument was false. This is because I was responding to the barbs that refused to take my initial stand (noted at least as reasonable) seriously. That's the whole problem, as I have said time and time again. The refusal to take the matter seriously. Forget about any subsequent trolling by the likes of Hrodulf and now Tooltroll. The point was lost in the mire of disrespectful mirth - something that I predicted would happen and why a VFD was a waste of time. And I have offered the rewrite option BTW! So the claim that I haven't shifted from the delete this article stand is also not true. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough... I will admit, I was being a little intolerant myself in writing that, but really, the message remains the same- unfortunately (and I genuinely do mean that) most uncyc users aren't going to take you seriously now for the pure reason that you came across as being far too insistent and unmovable, as well as repeatedly stating with perhaps impossible certainty that all those who claimed to be aspies here weren't, which just inspired us to fall back onto our principles of non-censhorship far further than we would have done otherwise. I have to stress, I can see the logic in your argument... I just don't really agree that the article, as it stands (as a side not, i don't think it's particularly funny, but there you go) poses much of a threat in terms of dangerously offending aspies. --Sir Jam 10:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah well, Jam, you haven't seen the rage I have. That's why I disagree about the danger. If you'd seen it for yourself you might get the idea. It's not something that can be easily put in just words on a computer - as much as I have tried. Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and there were threats of the entirety of uncyclopedia being blanked by an aspie with a proxy generating program... that didn't really help slashy in being given a fair hearing. --Sir Jam 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And I got to do some flaming! Finally! --Hrodulf 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## A technical point

Anonymous Slashy, if you're going to use that instead of your ip stamp to sign your posts, put five tildes after it like this
"Anonymous Slashy ~~~~~" so your posts get date stamped. Thank you. --Hrodulf 10:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of proper usage of this:

"It's not my fault that you are all intolerant hateful people with hate in your hearts who hate people with AS and want to hurt them and then claim to be them and that's just sick and you're all hateful hateful people with hate in your hearts and evil in your minds and you won't listen to me and that means you aren't real aspies because if you were real aspies you'd all listen to me and be my followers and do whatever I said because if I said no aspie could live with this article than anyone who disagrees with me isn't really an aspie. Now delete the page or I will get the sysop of the internets to sue you for forty billion dollars! Anonymous Slashy 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)"

See, that post had a date stamp! Correct usage! --Hrodulf 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think he'll understand all those big words? I my cat! 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Big words, Tooltroll? Do you know any past four letters? ROTFLMAO Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If he does he'll get mad, so there's no way to know for sure, since he'd get mad anyway. --Hrodulf 14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

## Has anyone noticed that this?

In just a few days, this became longer than Talk:Euroipods. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you're right. --Hrodulf 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I cut and pasted the whole forum page into MS word, and it came out to fifty pages. That's a lot considering we didn't accomplish anything except pissing Slashy off. Oh well, at least I stuck to my guns on the censorship thing. --Hrodulf 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should nominate this as a featured article. It's giga-shitloads more entertaining than Euroipods! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 22:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd make an image for it, but I don't know how to photoshop. But yeah, it should definitely be featured/made an article of. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I use MS Paint (and occasionally MS Photo Editor) so most of pictures suck but that doesn't stop me. So, I edited and submitted the picture near the top of the page. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way you do. So I have no right to complain. In fact, it's pretty good. I actually submitted several Paint images myself. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

## Attn: Anon guy

Your use of proxies means I can't use your user talk page. I just have a quick question. If our article offends you, how much does this offend you: (Copy and paste in your browser. Stupid spam filter) http://aspergers.on.nimp.org (NOBODY BUT ANON GUY CLICK THIS URL. It's enough to offend a normal Uncyclopedian, I want to see anon's reaction. It's related to Goa Tse, but worse.) --User:Nintendorulez 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

God damn. I had to ForceQuit my browser to get rid of that shit. -- 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
God bless the GNAA. --Hrodulf 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I warned you guys... Goa Tse should've been a clear sign to not click. --User:Nintendorulez 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll just play it safe this time. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the warning all of you - and I didn't bother looking. Is it worse that this, Nin? (Warning - this one is bad as well!) www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Pain_Series Your response please. Rewrite11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That depends on what you are offended by. Personally, I'm more offended by images of book-burnings than I am of images that depicts extreme gore and the infamous image of a man distending his own anus. -- 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm more offended by removing articles simply because one person took offense. So, whther or not it's more offensive is up to you. It's a matter of opinion. --User:Nintendorulez 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• ring* *ring* "Hello?" ... *mumbled speaking* ... "Nin, it's for you, someone named 'Pot' calling to complain about you calling him black." » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The kettle called the pot black? I don't even know what that metaphor means, but it sounds clever. I'm stealing it.-- 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
He's trying to say we're hypocrites, which is pretty funny coming from Slashy, who still hasn't apologized for comparing 9/11 to me thinking we have a right to be offensive in the name of humor. Actually, he's been kind of quiet lately. Maybe he found an interesting rock to play with. --Hrodulf 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Is that supposed to refer to my request to have my name removed from Euroipods? I wasn't saying the article was offensive or anything, just that having my name served no satirical purpose and was no more than a cheap insult. And it's supposed to be the pot calling the kettle black. For more information on this metaphor, see Pot v. Kettle --User:Nintendorulez 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I think Slashy is saying we're hypocrites because we disagree with him or something. His argument is a little hard to follow so I could be wrong, but I think it's the "I'm wrong, but you're wrong too, so I win" argument. Rhetorical fireworks, no? --Hrodulf 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

## Dawg's infinite wisdom on this sordid affair

I, a famously evil admin, with a long history on this site, should put my two cents in on this subject since I am intimately familiar with Asperger's Syndrome and article review. I have made the following observations:

• Real aspies are more likely to get the humour of the vast majority of this site, not just because of the type of humour, but because of the mixture of type and medium.
• This supposed sufferer or crusader or whatever likely doesn't have it, or possesses comorbid disorders that supercede mere AS.
• AS is a highly over-diagnosed "disorder". Most that are diagnosed really have something far worse or happen to be dramatically disabled. Many that are claimed to be don't have it, because it is a very obvious and consistent 'disorder' that anyone could identify, especially in children and often readily in adults, though the vast majority can integrate into society pretty well. Imagine the comic book guy on The Simpsons - he's your quintessential aspie. I guarantee everyone has met at least one person like that in their life. Notice how he talks and doesn't look at people? Notice how he knows everything about every comic book he ever sees? Notice how he knows everything about every book in his store? He's an aspie.
• The article doesn't really parody the disorder very well. In fact, in my opinion, this article is total crap and more suitable for ED than this site. No offense, Todd. It just doesn't do the subject justice - it should be written about the disorder by a group of aspies, which means it would be really long, rambling, pedantic, and with lots of random facts tossed in about random vaguely related subjects.
• It's a social 'disorder' that by nature attracts people to online contribution. Wikipedia attracts a distinctly-above-average percentage of aspies, along with NT personality types, and particularly a mix of the two. Since it's a spectrum disorder, looking back, I'd say a pretty distinct percentage of those at WikiMania were potentially aspies, though probably not as 'serious' and certainly better-adapted, many had the classic traits as I look back. Not that I would notice instinctively, since I happen to also have aspie deficits...of course, before it was a popular disorder, we just integrated and learned. Overall, you can't tell the difference between an aspie and a normal person, especially among adults, and when I was a child it wasn't a popularly-known diagnosis. Instead, my mental health doctors generally only noted that I had some social difficulties, a lack of interest in things other children had interest in, and that I had an exceptionally-high IQ. Historically, people just called us eccentric geniuses, but recently the popular culture has definitely sidelined the group and it has resulted in people helpless to fix their situation ending up where they need to be diagnosed with something that amounts to nothing more than a variation that should be totally accepted. However, it is now hip to mention "interpersonal", "communication", or "social" skills in job descriptions for positions where you seldom interact with anyone, and certainly never a customer. That is discrimination, and would be a much more productive fight. I know some young aspies that can't seem to find a job at all because people can't accept it, while I started before the fad and I was in college, so I had a little flexibility.
Not knowing, I adapted, and now people often go unaware of my natural difference. Yes, it has caused a number of bad effects, and I am clearly naive when it comes to relationships, which particularly degrade when people meet me, and coupled with some of my other peculiarities, turn people off from wanting to be with me. Overall, I have a fine life and I try my best to get by just like everyone else, even though many things are harder for me than they are for others. I guess some just want to be coddled through life rather than making an effort...
• DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

Thank you for your time. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All good points, and perhaps so we can salvage something useful out of this train wreck, it occurs to me that maybe we should write the uncyclopedia equivalent of Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer, so we don't get one of these every few months or so. That way, when someone has this complaint, we just refer them to the disclaimer, and it's over before it begins. --Hrodulf 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I got the ball rolling at Uncyclopedia:Content Disclaimer. Maybe we can work out how best to implement the idea and improve the content as we go along, but I would really like to 1) get some meaningful improvement to the site out of this incident, and 2) try to avoid a recurrance of what happened in this forum. --Hrodulf 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Awwww, but I'm having such fun! Oh, well. . . I my cat! 08:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, it probably won't work anyway. I'm just trying really hard to squeeze a positive development out of this. --Hrodulf 08:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully this time this edit will stay - I would like to thank (shock horror) Hrodulf for restoring my last edit although he did miss one on the previous bunch of reverts (there were quite a few so I won't get pissed off about it). Lyons needs to pull his head in frankly with his reverts.
Now then, I want to address this posting from who appears to be the head chook in here. Dawg, I'm pleased that you have come in here and I would like you to read what I have to say as it is important. It would be appreciated if no one else get involved in this section of the forum.
Firstly Dawg, I would like to know where you got the information from your first point. It's not correct. Humour is highly subjective and is very reliant on the context. You may see for example that I got one of Orion's jokes above. The only reason that occured is because I was familiar with the context he was writing in. That is the key to an Aspie understanding a joke. If the context isn't there in a way that an Aspie can understand, then the joke will be missed. Even if there's a disclaimer on it (as there is on this article). Anything that's mocking in nature - no matter what the target - can easily be misinterpreted by an Aspie as a personal attack. I saw it, even though I knew it wasn't a personal attack on me. But it was an unintended personal attack on a part of me. A part of me I accept about myself despite it's pitfalls. Now one of the big issues most Aspies have is an inability to do this (accept AS). I have come across very few Aspies who have achieved this inner peace - to an extent. The average would be about one in ten. Nine people not wanting to know about it.
Now the reason for this is the fact that Aspies are regularly targets in the community for disrespect, contempt and whatever else. All Aspies hate this and have varying levels of inability to cope with it. Now this article shows respect for those who treat us Aspies like that, by doing the same thing. The fact that it's applied to Hollywood celebrities is something that Aspies not comfortable with themselves would miss. We are selfish people. We are self centred. You are seeing a lot of that in me in this forum. It's not something I'm proud of, but after everything I've copped in my life I'm fighting back. To see people write up things like this pushes the down button on the effort to get respect for Aspies and get those who are thinking so negatively up on their feet.
Secondly, I was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome in 1997. It was a solid DX and has been backed up by another two psychiatrists since then. I am offended that you claim that I do not have it, and I wish I could send you the DX itself.
Thirdly - one of the big problems we have is indeed this over diagnosis. There are a lot of lazy quacks in this world who think they know it all. And there are also the wimps who decide to buckle to pressure from parents who are convinced their child has it and won't hear anything else. It was almost like the latest craze at one stage a few years ago for some stupid reason. But I disagree that it is easy to identify. Not all morons in this world are Aspies. It goes a lot deeper than just social disorders - which seems to be the common denominator amongst the lazy DX's. Just because one has trouble with social situations doesn't automatically mean this person is an Aspie. There are a lot of other factors involved - which the Wikipedia article covers very well. There are a number of other websites on the subject - such as that of one of the world's foremost authorities on AS, Dr.Tony Attwood. I'm not a Simpsons fan so I can't comment on the comic book guy - but that evidence by itself doesn't prove he is an Aspie. He might be, but it isn't a definite.
Forthly - spot on. It's a terrible parody. I knew that. It showed a lack of understanding of Aspergers and really lacked direction. Along with the offending notes that I alluded to in my first response further up, which was what really got my goat above all else. I don't know that it belongs on ED though - it isn't nearly as offensive as their diatribe which isn't even a parody or satire. It's just plain rude. Right now - as I said above - it's not the time to spoof this disorder. Not with so many places around the world (whether it be the US, the UK, Australia and so on) still grappling with the disorder where it should be taken on with both hands - by government - and the lack of protection for those who have been trampled into the ground by bullies and cowards who see the lack of social ability (amongst other things) as one big joke and react accordingly. It's no joke. It's a serious freedom issue. A lot of Aspies including myself aren't working because of this, and can't because of the lack of protection.
Fifthly - I just want to point out that many Aspies have had it a lot worse than you have, Dawg. I'm not saying that just to make a cheap point. It happens to be true. You have a good life, and for that I say good for you. You aren't claiming to be an Aspie either, despite having some of the traits like the basic one with social relationships. I respect that. I haven't been as lucky. Because Aspies lack social instinct (this is the key difference between real Aspies and fake ones) we have to learn through sheer logic and experience. And with that comes a lot of questions. The key is getting the right answers. Checking statements if you like (something that AS shares with Autism). Not to mention the structure factor. When one has a majority of bad experiences, it has an effect. I have copped a great deal of that, and frankly I'm sick of it. That's why I'm fighting because I don't want any other Aspie to go through what I've been through. Or any other Aspie that I've seen - and there are Aspies who have had it even worse that I have. They are the ones who are ripe for a violent reaction that I've been talking about. It just depends if they reach a breaking point and what pulls the trigger. What concerns me is that this article may be a trigger. It has the potential to be one, which is why I wanted it deleted to begin with (because in my emotional fightback mode I didn't take the time to look for another answer because I didn't believe there was one) - and then have it rewritten completely which is my line now. Don't flip off coddling, Dawg. Sometimes it's needed to get an Aspie out of the gutter and back on their feet. That really applies to a lot of others with problems that are either of their own making or not. You can't force people. They need guidance and protection - protection from the things that pushed them into the gutter to begin with.
How about you and Dawg have a chat via IRC using private messages? Set a date and time and see if you two can reason things out. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Orion I already told you my computer doesn't like IRC. Why I don't know. And don't tell me to go to Firefox because that causes my computer problems. I stick with IE. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. You don't need an IRC client, you just need to use whatever browser you're already using. Go to that page and click the link. It will allow access through your browser, and it even masks your IP. Just pop in and talk to me. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sir, you have totally lost the point on the very few things out of your relentless diatribe that I read. In every instance you were mistaken or confused. I will not address any of your concerns in particular, aside from this last one, since I can see it and I don't feel like scrolling up to read a couple pages worth of drivel.
I was telling everyone else not to feel the trolls, which is an internet phrase meaning that you, my friend, are a troll, and I wish people would stop arguing with you. You're definitely a prime option for UGotM. In fact, I'll be nominating you now!
I will not delete this article, as I go on site consensus. Although I think the quality of the article is poor and that it has a lot of space for a rewrite, I cannot delete it on my opinion alone since there is nothing wrong with it. It fits all the requirements for inclusion, regardless of the content, and others believe it is funny, even if I don't think it is particularly funny. There is no higher power, aside from our leader-in-perpetual-absentia that could or would make a sweeping edict and delete this. I am, among a few others that have already responded here, those with the power to do something, and we won't.
If you hate it so much, rewrite it. Please. It's a far better use of your time and efforts. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Dawg, I find it interesting that you posted that after altering your original statements. That looks suspicious to be honest, because your alterations actually altered the meaning of the messages to which I was responding in the first place. Now if I'm a troll, I'm not naturally. I became one because Mr.Lyons over reacted when this whole thing started and went on rage of his own. All I am doing is stating my case (which what this forum was about to begin with) and then respond to the inaccuracies that followed. That is not trolling. The only trolls in here have been the people who have been intentionally offensive (particularly Tooltroll - hence his name obviously). Now if you want me to rewrite the article, release it to be edited. But of course you won't - or rather Lyons won't (he was the one who locked it to start with). So the point is moot. Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I clarified and repaired some things that were factually wrong, though they weren't in my head at the time (I tend to think ahead so far that I lose words due to the slow speed of typing). I was tired and I failed to review it carefully, I apologize. I also added some bits to clarify. The modifications were after my response immediately above, since I re-read it and noticed my blunders.
In the future, read the rules on a site before you edit. There is a long-standing policy of open editing except in cases of heavy vandalism, and if you don't like something, you are encoraged to rewrite it so it is better. There aren't any children that watch for article changes and revert if anyone not in their cabal edits a page. We love positive contributions, but the changes made only came across as vandalism, therefore you'll need to write something and submit it for review by the community before it might be unlocked for you to make that change. You have nobody to blame but yourself for that. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Dawg, that occured only because my initial reaction was for the article to be deleted, not altered. The chain of events that followed were not my fault, because no one (Orion in particular) believed me when I said the VFD process was a sham. The fact that it's a sham is YOUR fault, not mine. So before having a go at me, I suggest you look at your own rules first. Things turned out like this because your rules were not being adhered to. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my advice is along the same lines. Honestly, you're not going to change an entire community's viewpoint by just turning up and telling us what's wrong with us. The same thing happens every couple of months or so with our articles about 9/11, the holocaust, various countries etc. - basically any contentious issue. However, in most cases, such articles have been created, edited or rewritten by people who have a direct connection to them, and thus a genuine sensitivity of what is "good" humour about the subject and what is crass and inappropriate. Who better to write a satirical article about Poland than a Pole? This is what we're aiming for. There's already a site (whose name We Do Not Mention - hint:the initals are ED) where people write stuff like "Poles are ghey LOL", and the universal opinion is pretty much that it's childish and pathetic. We want to be better than that. As Dawg said, you're far better off rewriting the article, or even dedicating some of your time to informing and educating people about Asperger's (in a non-confrontational manner), then by simply appearing from nowhere and demanding that we alter our content under threat of vandalism. As Tooltroll's remarks should have shown you, people react negatively when threatened. Human nature at its finest. :-/ We're mostly reasonable people here, and we'll work with you to the best of our abilities if you give us something to work with, but we're unlikely to respond well to demands. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That actually made sense, Codeine. Too bad it's likely wasted on Slashy, given what we've gotten from him in here thus far. --Hrodulf 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I respond to the way I am treated, Hrodulf. You will see above in my response to Dawg what is needed. The release of the article to editing. Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Final Message --Hrodulf 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak #4. On and on and on...... Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Final Message --Hrodulf 12:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, poor little boy- he has it so much worse than everybody else! You, and every other member of the "disease-of-the-month-club." (I refer here to losers like slashy who use their own hypochondriac diagnoses to garner sympathy from anyone who'll listen.) Any more lame excuses, you pitiful mass? You just don't get it: You're a whiney prat who won't compromise and won't shut up, demonstrating the fact that you're just here to cause trouble. Nobody believes you have Asperger's, nobody cares what a child like you thinks, and there will be no "resolution" to this "issue." The article will stay or go as the membership dictates, and you will be a footnote on this site to be brought up every few months for entertainment, empty threats and all. I doubt anybody is stupid enough to ponder exchanging private addresses with you and getting a mailbox full of goa tse as a result. To be succint: Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. I my cat! 09:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It occurs that that may not be quite the most appropriate attitude in trying to resolve something like this, tooltroll... although I suppose to be representative of the opinions of all uncyc users yours has to be given equal weighting. --Sir Jam 09:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Not quite, Jam? Didn't the boss of this site (Dawg) say "Do not feed the trolls?" I did ask that this be left between me and him, so what does Tooltroll do? Prove how much of a tool he is and ignore it. Out of respect for Dawg (not me) he should have shut his mouth. Rewrite 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, just FYI, Dawg doesn't have any particular authority beyond being an admin... this site doesn't actually have a "boss" insofar as I know (with the possible exception of Rc, although he holds more of a de facto position) so, even when they get rather unpleasant, one has to respect everyone's contributions; hence it can't just be "left" between you and one other person. Think of it as a sort of socialist democracy, just a bit more sordid. --Sir Jam 10:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Websites work best with someone in charge in my experience, Jam. With a tag like Brigadier (which is the highest rank I've seen since this started) it insinuated that he was the head cheese - or one of them anyway. Certainly higher up than anyone else who has posted on this forum. Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The ranks at Uncyclopedia are like goggles, zey do nuzzink according to Hinoa. I am a LT. in name only, yet I am not even getting a salary at all. I mean an officer's salary would do me good, because I haven't worked since 2002. I used to use a rank of Lord High Admiral, and then invented PIPs for higher Admiral ranks. Admiral PIP PIP Nelson was not ranked as high as Admiral PIP PIP PIP Byrd in my made-up universe and pirate navy. Why in my pirate navy the PIPs not only go on the uniform but are part of the rank names. Anyway my point is that if there was only one person in charge of Uncyclopedia, they'd go insane within 30 minutes of having to deal with everything. It is better to spread out the administrative power to some power hungry good natured volunteers that actually like huffing articles and banning anonymous IPs and reverting vandalism and blankings. You have no idea of the amount of stuff that admins have to deal with on a daily basis. I am quite amazed that they haven't all died from the stress alone, and because of that they earned my respect. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in this thread I am technically the most powerful member in the uncyclopedia hierarchy to have posted a response, but none of us abuse our power. The world is mostly flat here, aside from a generally-benevolent oligarchy. A single person in charge?! How Web 1.0! You do realize this is a wiki, right? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a minute, Orion. I am not suggesting that Uncyc should have one boss working alone. Heck no! For a website this size, what is needed is a team of bosses with a boss for them to share the load. I believe Wikipedia works this way. Most forums (as in IPB, VBulletin etc etc) also work that way - and multiple admins are actually discouraged by forum hosts. For very good reason. It also gives the chance for people to deal properly and quickly with issues because there are less people to ask about it. I suggest Uncyclopedia follow this path. It would solve a number of issues. Rewrite Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what we have, cheese. Go take a look. Many of the people you've been arguing with here are part of that "team of bosses", only unlike the old-fashioned backward world that you grew up in, we're all progressive modern people that believe in a community. Tyranny is bad, oppressive rules are bad, and people hate them, therefore, while we joke about them, we don't act like that. The group you needed to appeal to has spoken, not getting your way is a part of life, and this attitude is one of the reasons that people don't like you. It has nothing to do with your lack of instinct and everything to do with your inability to learn that acting in the way that you do is unacceptable and only gets things done when you're talking to dense, naive, old-fashioned site owners. Again, have you failed to realize that this is a wiki? You have contradicted yourself repeatedly between vandalism, utilizing free speech that we graciously grant you, breaking laws repeatedly in your crusade, then when you don't get your way, you bitch and moan to anyone and everyone under the sun. JUST LET IT GO. Once you learn to do that, you might grow...just a little. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
See what I mean? Totally closed-minded, hasn't even clued in to the way this site works after all that ↑ . What kind of moron can't get it through what I'll loosely call his head, that one, or a minority of, opinion is relatively insignificant here, be it his, mine, or anyone else's. Uncyclopedia's karma utterly squashes his dogma, and he can't see the mangled corpse for the life of him! I my cat! 11:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nor does he seem to comprehend that Dawg called him a troll. . . and not the good kind like me. He's probably waiting for contact. . . Heh. I my cat! 11:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, the little twit isn't interested in any real resolution, else this page would be a quarter of the length it is. . . He started issuing ultimatums, a lot of people tried to reason with him, he made it clear that he wasn't going to budge, then I stepped in when it became clear (to me, at least) that he was just here to stroke his ego by causing a kerfuffle. If all he gets is scorn and abuse, he'll either go away, or become a disciple. As you say, all opinions should be represented, and a few others seem to concur with my (admittedly overstated) opinion of this particular parasite. I my cat! 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Parasite? Pot Kettle Black. All I'll do if I'm heaped with scorn and abuse is shovel it back. Nuff said. Rewrite 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that the best you can do, you scum-sucking leech? I've seen more ominous statements in fortune cookies! BTW, My Favorite Moron™, the pot calling the kettle black does not alter the fact that the kettle is, in fact, black. You seem to be the only one to see a black pot, though. I'm getting kudos for tearing into you: You're a flamer's wet dream! Any more pointless aphorisms to spout, thou brain-damaged spawn of aberrant nucleotides? I've "heaped" you (good grammar, poindexter!) with several pages of scorn and abuse already, and all I get is empty threats of retaliation. Wow. Deja vu. Perhaps for your next trick, you can resort to Reductio Ad Hitlerum. . .  I my cat! 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
ToolTroll: Enough. please. You are not helping, and this vitriol is just stupid, not funny. You'll be calling him "ghey" next. -- sannse (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Perpetuating a flamewar is not the way to resolve this situation. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Well said. Tooltroll is serving no good purpose in this forum. Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
'Til next troll, then. (And no, actually, I wouldn't have. . . that's just too lame and overdone.) I my cat! 13:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

## Anonymous slashy is a wannabe miner

Examine the clues left in the text:

• A clear penchant - I'm just the only one at the coal face.
• Stating that ...you HAVE to treat Aspies as children. - It is a simple leap of logic (heavily implied from the subtext) from a minor to a MINER.
• Conversational implications of heavy mining machinery only adds to the argument:
• ...shovel it back.
• ...if it has to be drilled into...

From this, and other inferences apparent to the more educated reader it is clearly apparent that this "True Aspie" desires a career in mining. It is then, perhaps unfortunate that their desire is unlikely to be fulfilled. Economic trade relationships between countries mean that most mined produce is now imported. Miners are now un-employed, and have to live off the state, suffering from lack of coal inhalation.

Anonymous slashy, I have but two pieces of guidance.

Specialise in Pot Noodle. There seems to be a growing market for mining this stuff.
Start inhaling coal dust. You can then claim benefits when you grow up.
Move to the third-world. There are plenty of mining opportunities there.
`

--no, yuo chat 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now THIS is funny! Well done! Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

 What is gives me the right to say that thing that so offends you? I'll tell you: God gave me that right, Thomas Jefferson recognized that right, James Madison institutionalized that right, John Bingham expanded that right, and George Bush has to defend that right. Your rights do restrict threat of actual harm, fraud and libel, but those are inapplicable here. Your country's laws and courts don't apply to me or these servers, so if you want something, politely try to convince me. Remember, you have no right to post on this site, so respect the rules, or get out.
Best. Post. Ever. Jboyler 23:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if Isra didn't just make this whole Slashy experience worth it, he came damn well close. --Hrodulf 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What we are doing here is not the same as destroying the World Trade Center, it is not the same as committing genocide against the Jews, and it is not the same as any other of the things you have stupidly compared our writing to. Those things involved physically harming someone, taking away their life, or taking away their liberties. They were also done with actual malice. Writing a page that you find offensive fills none of these criteria. There is no malice and you are deprived of none of your rights. There is no right to be left unoffended. There is no right to be uninsulted. There is no right to be respected by others. There is no right to silence people whose ideas you disagree with. There is no right to stop a behavior just because it doesn't promote brotherly love.
This isn't a liberal thing. This isn't a conservative thing. These are the base philosophical positions upon which the Credal Nation of the United States was built, these are the ideas that made it the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, and these are the ideas that you will have to get used to and accept if you want to get anything done around here.-- 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait, did Slashy actually try to claim this was a liberal/conservative thing? Heh, even I don't get that absurd about things as November (Tuesday: 2-7) approaches... --User:Nintendorulez 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hooray for American civil liberties, and to Isra for that breath of fresh, sane air in this place of fragile egos and even more fragile/contorted logic. --Hrodulf 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
/me begins pointless flag-waving that us Americans are prone to do.-- 23:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oh boy! You just don't get it do you? My country's laws DO apply - it is written into international law that the laws that apply are those of the country of the prosecuting party. That's a fact. Now unless Isra lives in the same country I do, he has to accept that. US law is not world law. It is US law. If the US tried to apply their law worldwide there would be ANARCHY! And the United Nations would tell them to get back in their box (and rightly so) with the French leading the charge, and a number of other European countries not far behind. I have every right to post in defence of my own (Aspies) and subsequently in my own personal defence against the diatribe that is aimed squarely at me. So take your post and shove it, Isra. You have no idea. You just showed the sort of American the world hates, has no respect for, and frankly fears because of it's lack of accountability.
You really are living in lala land if you think you can use the DDA against us......--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 07:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wrong country, Elvis! Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm, no, your country's laws don't apply. The laws of whatever country the site's servers are hosted on apply. If it were your country's laws, how exactly would your country shut down the site? Ah yes, the servers are on the soil of a completely different country. Use some common sense: What country has jurisdiction over them? ...BTW, what country are the Wikia servers in, and what country are you in? --User:Nintendorulez 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I never said the article by itself was as bad as 9/11. I brought up 9/11 only when Hrodulf claimed the right to be offensive. That was a more general comment not exclusive to the article, which brought in a whole heap of other offensive acts more serious than this articles - including 9/11. I went into this in more detail further up. You are looking at the act - not the cause. And just to finish, Nin is right - I never claimed this to be a liberal v conservative thing. Actually I'm not either. I'm centre left (more centre than left) socialist with a level of respect for capitalism. Not the extreme capitalism that the US propogates. Rewrite 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To make this crystal clear to everyone: The United States is a sovereign nation, so international law has effect inside the U.S. only if it has been given effect by a valid United States law or treaty. Because the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech, except for those laws needed to protect an unenumerated right granted by the same Constitution, no valid U.S. law can give effect to any foreign or international law that abridges my freedom of speech. Sure, you can sue me in your country, but I don't have any assets there that you can take. Sure, you can bring criminal proceedings against me in your country, but your police can't come to the U.S. to arrest me. In reality, the only law that matters here is U.S. law. The same goes for our servers: you can sue Wikia to try to force them to remove content, but unless that judgment is rendered in a Federal Court or a court of the State of Florida, they won't have to obey it. This is why so many internet sites are hosted in the United States. This is why Wikipedia can exist. As for your freedom of speech: you have a right to say anything you want. But you don't have a right to use these servers, which are private property, to say it. -- 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Isra, you are wrong yet again. If action is taken in another country, that country's law applies because it was in that country that the offence occured. This has legal precedence. For example, if someone in America committed an offence on the Internet against a resident of England and the resident of England viewed this material in England or had the negative experience flowing on from this material - it is heard and prosecuted under UK law. And it doesn't just apply to the Internet. I read a story some time ago about a person being defamed in a book published in Israel. The person however viewed the book in Australia. Which country's law applied? Australia's. If I can find the case I'll link you to it. Also, Internet servers are NOT private property when it comes to access. If you want to make it private property - stop IP's from posting. Until then - it's public. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk to a lawyer. Any competant one will tell you there is no way to enforce a speech law against a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. Internet servers are indeed private property. If you don't understand that, you need to look up the definition of private property.-- 10:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Slashy, you just showed the sort of non-American that America hates, has no respect for, and fears because of your lack of respect for our culture, sovereignty and institutions, your lack of legitimacy for the sweeping power you claim over the lives of other people, and your complete misunderstanding of the way the world works. I have done nothing to harm you, so you have no right to hold me accountable to you, and its a good thing for everyone in the world that you don't.-- 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You can do what you like in your own country. I'll let you, because you have that right. But on the Internet you have to respect other cultures, and don't shove it down the throats of those who want nothing to do with it. Why do you think Al Queda is blowing back at you? I'm not justifying their actions, but I AM justifying their anger! You want me to butt out? You butt out first! And I don't mean you specifically - I mean your government! Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am doing what I want in my own country. The computer I am on is in my country. The computer this site is on is in my country, the infrastructure that creates the internet is in my country, and the domain name servers that allow you to access this site are in my country. The only reason anything goes outside of my country is that you send an http request for those servers to send information to your country. -- 10:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who reads your (mostly reverted) comments can see that you accused people of rampant liberalism for supporting American liberties. And anyone who reads this far knows that you aren't looking at the cause of the Asperger Syndrome page, because the cause was someone meaning no harm, insult or offense to you or any Aspie trying to make a funny article.-- 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is they failed and the article as a result of that IS offensive and NOT funny. Heck a number of people - whilst blowing me off - actually AGREED with that (and Dawg went further and directly criticised Lyons whilst apologising for it just in case he took offence). Whether or not any offence was intended is beside the point. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not that funny, just one or two chuckles from the whole page, and it is barely offensive. But we aren't taking it down just because of that. --User:Nintendorulez 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm done talking to Slashy like I said, and I also want to note that I appreciate everything Isra has said here. As implied by my Final Message, if Slashy addresses me by name, I will refer him to that message, since the fact that he's still trying to communicate with me proves that he hasn't read it enough times (likely, hasn't read it at all, actually). I'd like to say thanks to everybody for showing Slashy that we're not going to accept Slashy control of uncyclopedia in any way, shape or form. Thanks, everybody. --Hrodulf 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I did read it - and it's the calling card of a coward - running away instead of standing and fighting, and contradicting another remark you made elsewhere in this forum that you would fight. Make up your mind! Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't directed at Slashy, who I am not talking to anymore, but I do want people to understand that I simply feel that what I said before in my final statement is really all that needed to be said, but I refuse to permit Slashy to run around this forum spouting his filth and making strange accusations against me without exercising what Slashy calls a "right of reply." The thing is, I have a life, and I choose not to waste it coming up with new things to say to Slashy. So he has his say, but I'm going to have mine. It's sort of funny how he doesn't seem to understand that 1)what an idiot (him) thinks of me doesn't bother me in the slightest, and 2)nobody else here cares about his idiotic opinion either, since I don't believe there's a single forum post here that supports the substance of Slashy's position that we should be censored. If anyone keeps coming back for more punishment, it's Slashy.
Oh, and Slashy, by the way, The Final Message --Hrodulf 12:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So, Slashy... you're saying you disapprove of the tenets of free speech? Ok...

No - I'm saying free speech is a myth because it gets abused and no one does anything about it. If it didn't get abused and was reasonably controlled (ie punish the abuse) then there is no problem with it. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Or more precisely, I think you are saying that anyone has the right to censor anything they find offensive. If so, please stop talking. Your idea of logical arguements insults my idea that people shouldn't be morons.--The One and Only 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh it applies to everyone, including me JBoyler. The only time it doesn't apply is when a person is lied about, in which case that person has the right of reply. You'll notice I'm not stopping you lot from replying (not that I could of course). I could revert it. But I'm not. I'm letting you lot have your say - as long as I have the right of reply. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
No, actually, he's not. Slashy is saying that Slashy has the right to censor anything Slashy finds offensive. Up above I was very offended by some of his 9/11 comments, but instead of apologising and censoring himself he told me that I was not offended and did not have the right to be offended. So Slashy does advocate censorship, just so long as it doesn't apply to him. Jboyler 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This whole situation reminds me of the "Killgore" character from "My Life as a Teenage Robot." Killgore's a tiny little wind-up toy that runs around yelling "SURRENDER." However, his wind up key seems to always run out before he manages to take over. Slashy's the same, he comes in here and acts like he's important and can control all the websites in the world just because he has an obnoxious personality and stupid beliefs about free speech, but he's really just a completely unimportant random person. Just like the rest of us. And us "surrendering" to him would be as ridiculous as us surrendering to a wind-up toy. --Hrodulf 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## What in the Wild Wild World Of Sports is gonin' on here?

Who does this slashy character think he is anyway? In my day we'd take such an obvious asshole and roll him up in a carpet and hand out baseball bats and everyone gets a turn whomping him. Since this is the 21st century, I guess we will have to settle to mocking him and making fun of him some more? I know people with Asperger Syndrome that don't act this bad. Jimminy Christmas cheese on crackers, this asshole does not even have Asperger Syndrome, this asshole is criminally insane! So much so that he should get into pollitics because I heard the US Democrats need a new criminally insane asshole to run against the US Republicans criminally insane assholes. What a pathetic waste of life this anonymous slashy appears to be, his mother should have gotten an abortion and even the christian fundamentalists agree with me on that one. Bastion 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, listen to Bastion. He's the vice-president of our "Whine Department" here at Uncyclopedia. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah and apparently he mentioned cheese to go with that whine on crackers didn't he? Only the best French Whine will do for Uncyclopedia. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh he's the VP of the Whine Department, is he? OK - first off I have been diagnosed with Aspergers. Secondly, that fact that you don't respect the Democrats shows that YOU are potentially the criminally insane one here - supporting a man (and I use that term loosely) who has no idea what he is doing either in his own country or in Iraq! Bush is a hated man, and if voting was compulsory in the US he would have been out of the Whitehouse on his ear in 2004 in a LANDSLIDE! Thank goodness he'll be gone by February 2009 - that can't come soon enough for the WORLD! I'd like to see you call me a waste when I get what all Aspies deserve - respect. Not from you lot, but from those who could. Those in power. And when WE get it (not I - WE) you'll see just how stupid you all are. The Bible does say "The meek shall inherit the earth". Think about that one. Rewrite 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh, the bible says a lot of things. Before you go demanding respect, you need to respect our freedom of speech rights, and this includes the freedom of satire and comedy. This is a FREE encyclopedia. If you don't like something that's on here, you can either add your own comedy to it to make it closer to the truth, or you can just move along instead of complaining about it. -- 12:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
He said the Dems lack a criminally insane asshole, and that the Republicans have plenty of criminally insane assholes. Evidently the meaning of that went waaaaaaaaaaay over your head. --User:Nintendorulez 19:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I stand by our Whine Department (not to be mixed up with our Wine Department) VP. I just don't want to get fired is all. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## O, my people!

>sigh< . . . and so Slashy reiterates the same tired arguments yet again, throwing in bogus legal threats like a barracks lawyer, as if he's got the resources to actually commence legal proceedings. Don't you all get it? He won't be reasoned with, and will accept nothing less than absolute capitulation on our part. Logical, reasonable debate on the issue falls on deaf ears, and only prompts him to more repetition of his unwavering demands and/or rationale. The more you try to meet him halfway, the harder he spouts his immutable rhetoric. If you're not going to abuse him for your own pleasure, or let slip my leash, then quit talking to him before his repetitive dogma fills another page. We're no closer to a resolution than we were 190K ago, and we never will be, since it's clear that resolution is not his desire: He's just a spoiled little boy seeking attention. I my cat! 10:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is true. He is quite the attention whore. -- 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Tooltroll, speaking only for myself, based on this guy's arrogance, contempt for American civil rights, resorting to increasingly bizarre and hysterical attacks upon people who dare to disagree with him and complete failure to acknowledge that he's utterly lost this little debate, let that leash slip. Whatever you come up with isn't enough for this guy. I'd suggest he eat shit, but I don't want to be seen as promoting cannibalism. --Hrodulf 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## My Proposal

“We love positive contributions, but the changes made only came across as vandalism, therefore you'll need to write something and submit it for review by the community before it might be unlocked for you to make that change. You have nobody to blame but yourself for that.”
~ User:Dawg on Moving forward from this situation

Anyway, blame notwithstanding, I suggest the following: Create an alternate version of the Asperger's article elsewhere on the site. The best option would be for you to register a username and crete it as a subpage of that; however, if you're unable or unwilling to do that, please feel free to use User:Codeine/Asperger's Syndrome instead. Show us the things that an Asperger's patient finds amusing or ironic about their condition, and try to adhere to the guidelines in BGBU and HTBFANJS. Once you're done, let us know and we'll look at it; if it works there shouldn't be a problem with merging or replacing the current Asperger's article with the new version. Does this sound fair? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fucking hell, I was just about to suggest he do that... --User:Nintendorulez 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## Some thoughts on Slashy's fun Uncyclopedia misadventure (sporked from my userpage; I decided this forum wasn't long enough)

For those who don't know, Uncyclopedia was recently vandalized and then harassed at great length in the village dump by a pompous imbecile who has apparently decided that he has the power to control the content of every site on the internet and censor anything that offends his small-minded opinions and balsa-wood brittle ego.

This is the face of extremism. Throughout this entire episode, I've been reminded of nothing more than video I'd seen of members of the Westboro Baptist Church on youtube, for sheer irrationality, attacking anybody who disagrees and deciding that their own thoughts, ideas and beliefs are somehow the most important thing in human history, and everyone else is hateful, evil stupid and cowardly.

One of Slashy's idiotic criticisms of me when I mentioned in the forum that seeing his kind of extremism in action was a bit of a new experience to me was "What cave have you been living in for the last couple of decades?" If living in a cave would be the only way to get away from idiots like Slashy, then I'd gladly move in. However, since there are fortunately not that many people quite as horrendously stupid and arrogant as Slashy around where I live (or if there are, they leave me alone), that won't be necessary. Suffice it to say that I'm proud to live in a country where dealing with Slashy during this episode was a novelty; Slashy's attempted insult is actually high praise for the essential sanity of our community, and I'm very proud of our strong response to this refugee from a colostomy bag's attempted vandalism and intimidation. While some people may see this episode as minor, or frivolous, it isn't. We stood up to ideological aggression against our freedom of expression, we didn't mince words, we didn't retreat, we didn't surrender, we didn't give up, and we won. And Slashy will have to find some way to live with that fact. Or not. I don't give a tinker's cuss about Slashy or the feeble activities of his obviously severely damaged brain.

And I truly meant what I said in the forum about thanking everybody for helping us give Slashy the treatment he so richly deserves and earns; since a lot of people didn't read it, let me say it again, thank you Uncyclopedia, for treating Slashy in the exact manner in which a bottom feeding pile of filth like him should be, marginalized, ridiculed and universally hated for his unbelievable stupidity and apparent inability to think of anyone other than himself. If I was speaking to him, congratulations would be in order. I don't believe anyone has ever managed to become the most hated person on Uncyclopedia in only four days before. --Hrodulf 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm exceptionally disappointed that anyone should feel the need to express themselves in terms of hatred, especially a long-term user like yourself. And if I ever believe that the petty, vitriolic and abusive attitude you and others (yes Tooltroll, I'm looking in your direction) have exemplified in your statements on this page is truly representative of the majority mindset on Uncyclopedia, I shall have no hesitation in leaving this site permanently. This is humour site, we should deal with all things in good humour, and not let ourselves become bitter, sniping elitists. I am most definitely not a man of religion, but it strikes me that the concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" might not be entirely out of place in situations like these. Grow up, and stop lowering yourselves to nasty levels that are way beneath what you're capable of. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, now, Codeine, I can see how I gave you that impression. I certainly don't think the abuse we've been slinging at Slashy is representative of the attitude of the general population, and if you'll check my contribs, you'll find that my statements toward Slashy are quite unrepresentative of my usual tone and demeanor. Similarly, the acts of a soldier in a combat zone are quite different from the acts of civilians at home, and possibly quite repugnant to that public. But, as an infantryman buddy of mine is fond of saying when the media jumps on the Canadian forces for perceived misbehaviour: "When you need to defend your country, why wouldn't you send the most violent, depraved bastards you can?" An extreme viewpoint, I'll admit, but with a nugget of truth, nonetheless. I'd also like to point out that when I was asked to stop, I stopped (like the good little troll I am.) And of course, what you couldn't possibly have seen was the shit-eating grin on my face while I composed my remarks to Slashy. . . Insult and vitriol can be considered humourous and artful by some, and Hrodulf and others saw the merit in my words. I think this is one of those subjective things that some appreciate and others don't. Sorry if I offended you or any other of our regular contributors, but in this particular instance, IMHO I responded to Slashy with what he deserved. I my cat! 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand and respect your position on this issue of whether it's appropriate to express myself in this way, Codeine, and I usually don't, but in this instance, I judged it justified. Needless to say, I'm not planning to do a lot of this sort of thing. You're completely entitled to condemn me for it, since I understand where you're coming from though. But that's ok. There's plenty of comdemnation to go around in the world, I won't hog it all. --Hrodulf 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Slashy uses video game software to simulate blowing up the buildings where Uncyclopedia's servers are stored; this is what he would plan to do if he was capable of accomplishing anything in the real world.
I think you should better listen to Codeine, Hrodulf. What you are saying here is basically just what everyone else in the world thinks what the US of A "stands for" - wars, wars and wars. Don't get me wrong here, mate! I am not here to spread hatred against America. I am just pointing out the fact that most of us here are not interested in this kind of antics. I don't know what kind of kool aid you guys have been drinking, users and admins alike, but what you are doing is certainly not going to achieve anything. Just look at the so-called "War on Terror". Are we still not under the threat of terrorism and all sorts of malices? Do the fundamentalist Muslims not hate the West as much as they used to? What has the war in Iraq achieved? And now you are imitating George W. Bush by self-righteously dragging the whole site into some pointless flamewar, and you are making every one of us look bad. Please, by all means, think of us the rest of your fellow users, and stop bringing this debate to the next level.
By the way, yes, I am an experienced user here, but, no, I'd rather stay anonymous just from the time being due to my own poor reputation in similar issues. -- The Colonel (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
C'mon, Codeine. What Hrodulf, Tooltroll, myself and others here expressed is not hatred. It's love of freedom and a willingness to tenaciously defend that freedom against self-appointed spokesmen for the perpetually offended like Slashy. I don't think anyone here really wishes him death or bodily harm, even though he has compared our satire to the WTC attacks (whether he was serious or exaggerating to make a point someone far better at interpreting human behavior than me would have to decide). But if he keeps coming here looking to be used as a punching bag I don't see why we shouldn't oblige him. Let him serve as an example for others who would do the same, but who are not as incapable of learning from their mistakes (and the mistakes of others).--Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I respect what everyone's saying, but please don't drag world politics into this. It has nothing to do with this anon and his one person attack on our site and freedom of expression. And I am not making everybody look bad, I'm speaking as to what my on feelings are on this whole experience. It's not my fault if people look at my remarks and blame someone else for them. And I don't hate Slashy. I just have a very low opinion of him, and I'm not shy about communicating that.
And I'd like to add that Slashy has accused me of "not fighting" him anymore and being a coward as well as several other strange things. If I remained silent, I would have been affirming his beliefs and while this doesn't bother me, it would make me appear weak in my opinion in the face of this aggression from somewhere in the world, planet Mars perhaps judging from the attitude displayed. While I don't care what Slashy thinks, I do care what other people here think, and I think they would have a low impression of me if I didn't respond to accusations of cowardice, etc. You're entitled to condemn me for what I did, but be aware I was in a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation, and there were consequences both for remaining silent, which I did not do, and to responding honestly as to what my feelings about all of this actually were, which is what I did do.
You're entitled to feel uncomfortable about what I wrote, but I don't think it's wrong to have the feelings I had, and to express them, when faced with the extreme provocation that existed here. I don't run around putting this stuff all over the place, and normally I refrain from it. In fact, earlier in this discussion I was trying deliberately not to insult Slashy, because I saw that all he did was criticize people for it. But then he criticized me just for believing in free speech and then said I deserved worldwide condemnation for supporting that idea, then launched into another tirade about how I don't care about the oppressed people of the world and even more nonsense. I stand behind every word of my editorial. It's a record of my emotional reaction to everything Slashy has said to me. And you're entitled not to like it, but it's valid for me to feel that way in this situation, and it's valid for me to communicate it. That's why it's from the "editorial" section of my userpage. It's my point of view. And I refuse to apologize for having that point of view in this circumstance.
What isn't valid, however, is your implication that somehow because the United States' foreign policy is out of whack, that means I'm not allowed to tell Slashy exactly what I think of him, for fear of perpetuating imperialism or some such. You can think whatever you want about the US or our government, but I would prefer that you don't conflate me with it; that isn't a fair response to what I said and you're just using me as a punching bag for your completely justified, but misdirected, feelings about President Bush and the US government. Thank you for sharing your views, even though I don't agree with most of what you wrote. --Hrodulf 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying that you are perpetuating some sort of imperialism. I am saying that what you are doing is pointless. I don't want to know how much you love freedom or how willing you are to fight for it. The Bush administration started that whole "War on Terror" in the name of freedom, too, but what did they achieve, after all? Yeah, "It's love of freedom and a willingness to tenaciously defend that freedom against {insert freedom haters here}" - don't you realise you sound just like George W.? Look at what Iraq has become! You are just repeating a part of human history and all its blunders. There is nothing righteous in what you are doing. Listen to Codeine, dude, and give this whole thing a rest. -- The Colonel (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You're entitled to see it as pointless, I don't. Slashy accused me of being a coward, called me a fool, and various other insults. I don't have to take that kind of treatment without responding in kind. And if you expect me to do so because of your political beliefs, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's not going to happen. I was provoked and responded as anybody would, given the correct provocation. I'm only human.
And please stop talking to me about the war on terrorism and Bush. That has nothing to do with this and like I said, you're just using me as a punching bag for your political views, which you didn't even comment on. I think that's fairly pathetic, honestly. Frankly, I don't care about your opinion of my actions, and I don't need to justify myself to you. --Hrodulf 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Slashy, I suggest you read the bottoms two sections of this forum. The debate is over. You have lost. There is no point in continuing to complain to us and demanding that we delete the article that offends you so much. We have already asserted that we are protected by the first amendment, and that we have the freedom to satirize as well. Your epic "crusade" is pointless, and you will not get what you want. As was previously stated in this article, "just because one person was offended by the article does not mean that we are going to remove it". -- 23:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
202.6.138.43 is not slashy. Note how he uses the same IP address whenever he posts. Note how he isn't banned. But seriously, why is George W. Bush at issue here? Last I checked this page was supposed to be about defending the idea that we can write pages on whatever subject we as a community decide we want to, even if a few people may be offended. That and baiting Slashy into giving up more of his proxies so we can ban them. Since C.... er 202.6.138.43 isn't slashy, I suggest we wrap this part of the conversation up ASAP. -- 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes things just make me want to cry and laugh at the same time. Oh! Priceless... -- The Colonel (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, in case there was any confusion, I knew you weren't Slashy and I was not the one who changed your ip address to say Slashy. Check the history if you care to.
And if anyone's hysterical, Col., it's you with your ridiculous rant about the war, which like I said, has zero relevance to any of this. Even Isra, who usually stays out of nonsense like this, has pointed out that your linking of this issue to Bush and the war is moronic, saying "But seriously, why is George W. Bush at issue here? Last I checked this page was supposed to be about defending the idea that we can write pages on whatever subject we as a community decide we want to, even if a few people may be offended."
Don't compare me to Bush for telling off someone who called me a fool and a coward. I consider being compared to Bush an insult. I think comparing you to Slashy is a good retaliation, although Bush is probably an Einstein compared to Slashy, so I guess you got the short end of the stick. And next time you want to hide behind an ip address and sling mud, and taunt us for it, try a little bit harder. Maybe you can get some help from Slashy on how to do it right. You've obviously been taking troll lessons from him, maybe it's time to move on to Chapter 2, anon proxies --Hrodulf 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

## Let's end the fucking politics already, shall we?

It seems to me like everyone forgot what this debate is about and we got sidetracked by Slashy's attempt at comparing us to Bush's foreign policies or something like that.. Allow me to summarize the base thesis of Uncyc's collective arguments in a single sentence: Just because one person took offense to one article doesn't mean we have to delete it. Discuss. --User:Nintendorulez 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. Can we end this pointless debate now? -- 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nin, perhaps there is a more straightfoward thesis than yours. From what I gathered, it was more along the lines of, Fuck off, Slashy.--The One and Only 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we just ban him/her/it/Slashy and get it the feck over with? Seriously. SERIOUSLY, WE DID NOT NEED TO DO THIS PEOPLE. Let's make a new rule here. Rule #3: No whining. Whiners get banned. Add to that, Rule #4: The only exception to rule #3 being this guy. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 02:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
But whining, complaints, and debate are age-old traditions here. Without this, what would we all have done? Write another 100 funny articles? NRV another metric ton of cruft? Who knows? In any case, it didn't hurt anyone, except Slashy, who for the first time in his life failed to get what he wanted when he wanted it. I think that's a win for the good guys. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What Slashy actually tried to compare us to. --User:Nintendorulez 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## El Fin

I started acting in a way similar to this when it was all said and done. -- 21:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OKAY, can we officially end this nonsense? We've gone completely awry here, and now we're debating fucking politics. Looking at Orion's first post, and the last one, we can clearly see that a majority of this has been a waste of time. I don't know when this became a political forum, but the original intent is obviously lost. If anything, the only thing accomplished here was bringing awareness to the Asperger Syndrome article, and hopefully bringing the article to a different yet still humorous direction. Slashy, and possibly the rest of the world, now knows that we at Uncyclopedia don't negotiate with terrorists. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 19:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And we did get Uncyclopedia:Content Disclaimer, User:Anonymous Slashy and The Great Aspie War of Ought Six out of it. --Hrodulf 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

## This is NOT OVER!!

You know what. I got sick and tired of going through this whole page editing, so instead of doing that yet again, I've grabbed the quotes I'm addressing and worked from here. And if this change is reverted I'll just bring it back over and over, so don't bother (I'm talking to you Lyons and Elvis!). I WILL BE HEARD OVER THIS!!! Too bad, Dawg - you were wrong. You have not won. The battle is not done!

“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......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.”
~ User:Insineratehymn on Should the Asperger Syndrome article be put up for a VFD?

Now you are starting to get the idea. yes, there is something wrong with the person. So what are you going to do about it? Ignore it? By retaining the article in it's present form, YES YOU ARE! Who is to blame for that? The article, and whoever wrote it and whoever wouldn't change it - because the warning was given, and ignored! It's easy to keep video games from such people. With the Internet the responsibility is far more difficult to control. So the rules are different, and that includes avoiding upsetting such people. Get it now? Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Must get brain! Must get brain! HOO-HOO-HOO-HA-HA-HA!”
~ User:Naughtyned on My contribution (Voting Yes)

There you go! That proves you are in need of one! New brain to table 7! Stat! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Eh, you're entitled to your wrong opinion. But we don't have to take it.”
~ User:Kalir on My contribution (Voting Yes)

My opinion is not wrong. So take it. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“And again - gee you're a glutton for punishment aren't you?”
~ Yours truly on My contribution (Voting Yes)
“Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak #2”
~ Yours truly on My contribution (Voting Yes)

~ User:Hrodulf on My contribution (Voting Yes)

My response to the first one - Glutton alert! and to the second - And there's your proof. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Can I be the one giving him this treatment? I know I'm not exactly a professional, and my parole officer says I'm not supposed to even touch guns anymore... but still...”
~ User:Nintendorulez on My 2 Cents (CDN)

That remark will get you personally into trouble for inciting murder, Nin! Better retract that remark, pronto! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak #3. There's a pattern here, folks!”
~ Yours truly on My Final Thoughts
~ User:Hrodulf on My Final Thoughts

And there's your proof #2. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Five bucks says the irony was lost on him, and he took it as a complement”
~ User:Nintendorulez on Whining

Ten bucks says your wrong! I did say I'll leave that be! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Yes I am. You don't even know me, how would you be capable of telling what medical diagnosises I do and don't have? Seriously, if you're going to act like that, I suggest you go fuck yourself.”
~ User:Nintendorulez on Whining

You have repeatedly demonstrated social instinct to a level beyond an Aspie in this forum. So you aren't. The proof lies in the fact that you don't see an issue with the Aspergers article. If you were an Aspie you'd see it. Pure and simple. So stop lying and trying to wear a label that doesn't belong to you. And I'll bet your structure has also been interfered with by coming in here and it's not bothering you. More proof that you are NOT an Aspie! And stop swearing, loser! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Quite right, it requires balance, that is so true, and... you'll be pleased to hear that we have that balance here in the western world; since it is obviously illegal for one to go out and be slanderous or libelous, but on the flipside, a government also understands that works of non-profitable humor deserve to be protected as an institution, and hence, you'll find that the article we have is protected as such. no, we don't even need to game the legal system to get that status, any fresh lawyer will tell you that it's entitled to exist. you think THIS is oppressing the weak eh? then I think you'll crap yourself when you find out what's REALLY going on in the world. But, and I say it again, I think you're full of shit, and I disagree that Aspies think they're weak, but fortunately I happen to know of one, so I'll ask them, and while I'm at it, I'll get their opinion on the article too, so we can see whether the problem is yours because you're a whiny troll, or whether someone else agrees. Oppressing the weak? if that what it comes to, then fuck 'em, you included.”
~ User:Olipro on Freedom of Speech

You must be crazy if you think the balance of censorship is spot on in the western world, Olipro!! Making fun of people who can't handle humour is OPPRESSION! It puts up all the wrong ideas about someone who is in legit trouble or pain and the result is no one takes it seriously when it should be! You call that balance? Get out of your ivory tower lame brain, and live in the real world! The article is NOT protected for this reason - and I repeat that US law will not help you. My country's laws apply and the sooner you realise that the better! Oh of course, now you're in the gutter of language - which proves you have lost. I have not sworn once in this whole forum. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Bullshit. You don't need an IRC client, you just need to use whatever browser you're already using. Go to that page and click the link. It will allow access through your browser, and it even masks your IP. Just pop in and talk to me.”
~ User:Dawg on Dawg's infinite wisdom on this sordid affair

I tried that, Dawg, and I keep getting "Page can not be displayed". That's why the IRC client is needed. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Hrodulf doesn't care about the weak #4. On and on and on......”
~ Yours truly on Dawg's infinite wisdom on this sordid affair
~ User:Hrodulf on Dawg's infinite wisdom on this sordid affair

And there's you proof #3. Yeah I'll keep saying it because it's true! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“That's what we have, cheese. Go take a look. Many of the people you've been arguing with here are part of that "team of bosses", only unlike the old-fashioned backward world that you grew up in, we're all progressive modern people that believe in a community. Tyranny is bad, oppressive rules are bad, and people hate them, therefore, while we joke about them, we don't act like that. The group you needed to appeal to has spoken, not getting your way is a part of life, and this attitude is one of the reasons that people don't like you. It has nothing to do with your lack of instinct and everything to do with your inability to learn that acting in the way that you do is unacceptable and only gets things done when you're talking to dense, naive, old-fashioned site owners. Again, have you failed to realize that this is a wiki? You have contradicted yourself repeatedly between vandalism, utilizing free speech that we graciously grant you, breaking laws repeatedly in your crusade, then when you don't get your way, you bitch and moan to anyone and everyone under the sun. JUST LET IT GO. Once you learn to do that, you might grow...just a little.”
~ User:Dawg on Dawg's infinite wisdom on this sordid affair

OI! Just let it go = Get over it. Three words you never ever use in my presence. If an issue isn't properly dealt with, you don't just sweep it under the carpet. That's just asking for a psychological backlash at some later point in time. So I don't do it. I deal with it by getting closure. And the closure here is getting the article rewritten, or failing that deleted. Until I get that - no matter what you think (and your feeling towards my conduct completely ignores the fact that I am reacting to the unacceptable conduct of other members here - and you won't do anything about them like pulling them into line and so on like you're trying to do to me!) - I will keep at it. I am not breaking any laws that can hold up in any court anywhere. This is a wiki as you said. Free to be edited by anyone. That is what I am doing. I have not vandalised beyond the once (I am not a persistent one) and that is the only time I have even gone close to breaking any rules. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Erm, no, your country's laws don't apply. The laws of whatever country the site's servers are hosted on apply. If it were your country's laws, how exactly would your country shut down the site? Ah yes, the servers are on the soil of a completely different country. Use some common sense: What country has jurisdiction over them? ...BTW, what country are the Wikia servers in, and what country are you in?”
~ User:Nintendorulez on Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

Wrong! My country's laws apply and I gave an example elsewhere on this forum! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Talk to a lawyer. Any competant one will tell you there is no way to enforce a speech law against a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. Internet servers are indeed private property. If you don't understand that, you need to look up the definition of private property.”
~ User:Isra1337 on Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

You are talking about the physical server - which is irrelevant. I am talking about access, which is public property unless safeguards like passwords are in place (which they are not here). Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“I am doing what I want in my own country. The computer I am on is in my country. The computer this site is on is in my country, the infrastructure that creates the internet is in my country, and the domain name servers that allow you to access this site are in my country. The only reason anything goes outside of my country is that you send an http request for those servers to send information to your country.”
~ User:Isra1337 on Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

The infrastructure of the Internet is WORLD WIDE, dumbo! And that http request is the reason why my country's laws apply! Everything else is irrelevant to the issue I am talking about. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“It's not that funny, just one or two chuckles from the whole page, and it is barely offensive. But we aren't taking it down just because of that.”
~ User:Nintendorulez on Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

Then rewrite it seeing as you think you know better! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“The thing is, I have a life, and I choose not to waste it coming up with new things to say to Slashy. So he has his say, but I'm going to have mine. It's sort of funny how he doesn't seem to understand that 1)what an idiot (him) thinks of me doesn't bother me in the slightest, and 2)nobody else here cares about his idiotic opinion either, since I don't believe there's a single forum post here that supports the substance of Slashy's position that we should be censored. If anyone keeps coming back for more punishment, it's Slashy.”
~ User:Hrodulf on Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

If it dodn't bother you then why are you keeping on replying? Why? I'll tell you why. Because it DOES bother you! And yet YOU keep coming back rather for more, just to whine about it with a so-called "Final Message". I'm in your head over this liberalism thing and you can't handle it. That's why you keep coming back, because you know deep down I'm right and you can't take it! So if you can't take it, don't dish it out! Simple! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“This whole situation reminds me of the "Killgore" character from "My Life as a Teenage Robot." Killgore's a tiny little wind-up toy that runs around yelling "SURRENDER." However, his wind up key seems to always run out before he manages to take over. Slashy's the same, he comes in here and acts like he's important and can control all the websites in the world just because he has an obnoxious personality and stupid beliefs about free speech, but he's really just a completely unimportant random person. Just like the rest of us. And us "surrendering" to him would be as ridiculous as us surrendering to a wind-up toy.”
~ User:Hrodulf on Useless Constribution designed only to infuriate Anon Slashy into revealing another of his proxies

That is one of the most ridiculous analogies I've seen in my life. Not even worth saying anything more than that because it's so fanciful and way removed from the facts. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

O MY PEOPLE

“Unfortunately, this is true. He is quite the attention whore.”
~ User:Insineratehymn on O, my people!

If bringing attention to this issue of offending Aspies makes me an attention whore, then OK you can have that. It means that all politicians are attention whores as well, including the good ones. So is everyone on television, radio....need I go on? Get the point? Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Tooltroll, speaking only for myself, based on this guy's arrogance, contempt for American civil rights, resorting to increasingly bizarre and hysterical attacks upon people who dare to disagree with him and complete failure to acknowledge that he's utterly lost this little debate, let that leash slip. Whatever you come up with isn't enough for this guy. I'd suggest he eat shit, but I don't want to be seen as promoting cannibalism.”
~ User:Hrodulf on O, my people!

You're the one who's lost, Hrodulf. And I know exactly what you'll reply with - "The Final Message". And that only proves me to be correct because I have metaphorically bled you dry. You have no answers. I have the answer and it's right here ---> Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Anyway, blame notwithstanding, I suggest the following: Create an alternate version of the Asperger's article elsewhere on the site.”
~ User:Codeine on My proposal

I'll tell you what, Codeine. Because I am in no mood to be funny right now (unless something obvious pops up randomly - as it did with Orion's reference to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy) I know that I am not the right person to do that at this point. If I write something it will be serious with only the odd joke. I want someone else to do it. So many people are claiming to be Aspies in here. I don't believe them, but if they want to prove me wrong, this is their chance. I want to see a proper satire from the so called experts in here. Come on! Here's your chance. Let's see what you can do! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“I'm exceptionally disappointed that anyone should feel the need to express themselves in terms of hatred, especially a long-term user like yourself. And if I ever believe that the petty, vitriolic and abusive attitude you and others (yes Tooltroll, I'm looking in your direction) have exemplified in your statements on this page is truly representative of the majority mindset on Uncyclopedia, I shall have no hesitation in leaving this site permanently. This is humour site, we should deal with all things in good humour, and not let ourselves become bitter, sniping elitists. I am most definitely not a man of religion, but it strikes me that the concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" might not be entirely out of place in situations like these. Grow up, and stop lowering yourselves to nasty levels that are way beneath what you're capable of.”
~ User:Codeine on Some thoughts on Slashy's fun Uncyclopedia misadventure (sporked from my userpage; I decided this forum wasn't long enough)

Thank you, Codeine! Finally someone says it. I'm not solely responsible for the rubbish that's been put on this forum over the last few days. Cop that, Hrodulf and Tooltroll. Don't blame me for what you've been copping from me. You asked for it - and I didn't even sink to your level with THAT sort of name calling (particularly from Tooltroll who I barely responded to at all). Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“You're completely entitled to condemn me for it, since I understand where you're coming from though.”
~ User:Hrodulf on Some thoughts on Slashy's fun Uncyclopedia misadventure (sporked from my userpage; I decided this forum wasn't long enough)

Oh! So Codeine can condemn you, and you can take it. But when I condemn you it's like a light bulb going on and you turn from Dr.Jekyll to Mr.Hyde! Mr.Hyde is your problem, Hrodulf - you'd better get rid of him. He's the cause of all your problems! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“C'mon, Codeine. What Hrodulf, Tooltroll, myself and others here expressed is not hatred.”
~ User:Naughtyned on Some thoughts on Slashy's fun Uncyclopedia misadventure (sporked from my userpage; I decided this forum wasn't long enough)

Shut up, idiot. You've been giving off the hatred with the heat of white hot lava! The hate you are giving off is obvious and I'm returning it as I believe is the right thing to do! If you can't take it - tough, because you were the one who dished it out to begin with. Codeine is spot on, and the sooner you put a sock in it the better! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“But then he criticized me just for believing in free speech and then said I deserved worldwide condemnation for supporting that idea, then launched into another tirade about how I don't care about the oppressed people of the world and even more nonsense. I stand behind every word of my editorial. It's a record of my emotional reaction to everything Slashy has said to me. And you're entitled not to like it, but it's valid for me to feel that way in this situation, and it's valid for me to communicate it. That's why it's from the "editorial" section of my userpage. It's my point of view. And I refuse to apologize for having that point of view in this circumstance.”
~ User:Hrodulf on Some thoughts on Slashy's fun Uncyclopedia misadventure (sporked from my userpage; I decided this forum wasn't long enough)

The way you put yourself over in having a go at me was an example of free speech being abused, which is why I brought that up, Hrodulf. You shouldn't have done that, and everything I said from that point was provoked by you. Whilst this posting is one of your better ones, it still doesn't resolve the fact that you exposed yourself as the sort of liberalist that people hate. I keep saying this because you said it yourself - you admitted that people hate you for that, even in your own family. Can't you see that this happens because it's WRONG? If you want my respect, an admission that it IS wrong is really the only way you can do it. If you don't want my respect, then fine - walk away or even run away. Take your choice. You said it yourself - damned if you do and damned if you don't. But make the choice whatever it is. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“It seems to me like everyone forgot what this debate is about and we got sidetracked by Slashy's attempt at comparing us to Bush's foreign policies or something like that.. Allow me to summarize the base thesis of Uncyc's collective arguments in a single sentence: Just because one person took offense to one article doesn't mean we have to delete it. Discuss.”
~ User:Nintendorulez on Let's end the politics

No, Nin, it is NOT one person. It is more than a couple of dozen at least. I'm just the only one who has complained here. I can assure you the feelings of offence towards this article exists beyond just me. And as I keep saying (not delete) --> Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Nin, perhaps there is a more straightfoward thesis than yours. From what I gathered, it was more along the lines of, Fuck off, Slashy”
~ User:Czar Yah on Let's end the politics

Not happening! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Can we just ban him/her/it/Slashy and get it the feck over with?”
~ User:Electrified mocha chinchilla on Let's end the politics

Nope! I'll keep coming back until the article is rewritten or deleted - and not before! Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“..and hopefully bringing the article to a different yet still humorous direction. Slashy, and possibly the rest of the world, now knows that we at Uncyclopedia don't negotiate with terrorists.”

Should the article be rewritten as suggested, I will have got my way. If I am the terrorist (and I'm not but just for the sake of argument) then you HAVE negotiated! Reality check though - I am not a terrorist and I take offence to the suggestion that I am. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

“Sounds good to me. And we did get Uncyclopedia:Content Disclaimer, User:Anonymous Slashy and The Great Aspie War of Ought Six out of it.”
~ User:Hrodulf on El Fin

I will deal with the last two of these in due course if required.

And just to finish, I want to comment on the delightful stunt pulled by the mystery IP. It showed just how out of control members were and how they had to pull their heads in - as Codeine alluded to. I happened to agree with what the mystery member said by the way. Rewrite 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is over. You have no power here. Any edits you make can be reverted faster than you can type them, everybody is sick of listening to you, and nobody is interested in rewriting or deleting the article just for you. By this point we're all convinced that further reasoning with you is fruitless, since you've demonstrated total inflexibility. You've made threats of vandalism, threats of legal action, you've even spouted scripture, all to no avail. Yet, you still insist that you're not going to quit until you get what you want. . . How? Unless you actually embrace the way this site works, and rewrite it yourself, how will you get what you want? How?  I my cat! 10:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
More crap from the moron. How delightful. It's a good thing Slashy's not an American, we have enough stupid people. Let some other countries have some also. It's only fair. --Hrodulf 13:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

## Vote for "This IS Over"

Score: +3
• For Please, for the love of god, can we just end this? Declare some sort of Asperger armistice (with or without Slashy's consent)and lock away this forum topic... it has just become rather sad instead of amusing, to see so many good uncyclopedians reduced to such petty arguing, so surely it would be for the best just to put this issue behind us and <epic music> get on with our lives? Otherwise I think this forum is just going to be a lasting monument to the fact that we can be rather easily provoked by anyone with the time to argue on their hands.--Sir Jam 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For the love of humanity, this drama must stop. -- 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For this forum must be contained before it occupies $99.\bar{9}$% of Uncyclopedia, with the remaining content disappearing into the non-existent remaining infinitesimal. --Hrodulf 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)