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

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
 WARNING! This page contains profuse whining. Proceed with caution.

## 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.
Finally - as far as feeding the trolls go, it's a shame that the people who came in here did what they did. I did expect it given what I'd seen previously on a VFD (as I have explained). Humour is not the answer to absolutely everything - unless it's done responsibly. Irresponsible humour is dangerous (as the Danish cartoons attest to). I'm not saying this article is as bad as that - or at least as careless in terms of the timing and so on. I'm glad that this issue now has your attention, Dawg, and I hope we can sort something out to satisfy everyone and we can all be winners. If you wish to respond to this, I think it may be prudent to do so privately. If you can point me to some link where I can put my email address without any of the troublemakers seeing it, it would be much appreciated. I won't ask you to put yours up as that wouldn't be fair. Anonymous Slashy 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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...... Anonymous Slashy 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy 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, 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 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! --Anonymous Slashy

Eh, I don't get it, I've made like 3/4 comments but yet I'm singled out for admonishment and then none of his subsequent rant is about me, I'm proud that the cretin thinks I'm such a threat to him but I'm just a bit embarrased that I get the honour of being mentoined in the same breath as Todd whilst others who have done so much more work to show what a numpty this guy is miss out!!--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You can keep waging it, but the more you try the less likely that article will ever be deleted, let alone released to editing. Basically, you are your own worst enemy. All you're doing is causing people to entrench further. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 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......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? --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I grew up before there was a diagnosis for every minor variation in the human mind, as I said before. People would really benefit from not being labeled as broken and just being allowed to live, to overcome. It's not a new development. Aside from environmental factors involved in some physical diseases, there is nothing new under the sun. Aspies have existed for millenia, and nobody was out trying to medicate them or advocate censorship on their behalf. No, instead, they had and still have value. If they didn't get by, there would be no more. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Dawg if advances in diagnostic techniques and medication can help some people I think that's a good thing. If others prefer not to be labeled, or want to be labeled but not medicated because they think that their condition is just a difference, not a disease to be cured, that's OK, too. I support self-determination for all individuals, as long as they don't use whatever condition they have as an excuse for being a total fuckwad - like someone we know! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 18:16, 29 October 2006
“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! --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute, if I didn't have a brain, how could I use a keyboard, HMMM?! HA! HA! Burned you! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 18:16, 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. --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still your opinion, and we don't have to take it. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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)

And the reply to both;

~ User:Hrodulf on My contribution (Voting Yes)

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

Wow, I guess you're more of a dumbass than George W. Bush. It's called a joke, look it up in the dictionary. I tried to lighten the mood. This is a humor site, after all. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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. Anonymous Slashy --Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you pretty much continued comparing us to the US's politics. Clearly the irony of Dawg's statement didn't get through to you. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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! Anonymous Slashy --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, sir, you are showing a distinct lack of understanding. I could list the numerous ways, but you wouldn't comprehend. It basically comes down to the fact that it is a spectrum and real Aspies have no communication deficits online, hence the reason it's wildly popular to communicate via the internet. It's easy to learn social context online, whereas it is nearly impossible in meatspace, because in meatspace people expect you to use these instincts. The fact he sees nothing wrong with the article reinforces the belief that he potentially has it, and the fact you're offended by it reinforces my belief that you're one of these activist types with a hidden agenda instead of your claimed disorder. Labels are bad news, cheese. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Slashy, what if swearing is one of the ways that Nin’s Asperger’s manifests itself and he can’t help it? Show some fucking compassion you Goddamn cunt-rag! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason I show such a level of social instinct is that I am aware of the faults Asperger's leads me to have, and I've learned to overcome my disability. Whereas you just sit there like a lazy asshole and demand that everyone do everything you say and even feed you just because you have a minor disability. I never used my Asperger's as an excuse, you shouldn't either. Y'know, I'm starting to doubt that you have Asperger's. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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. Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet you resort to petty insults. Your laws do not apply to me, nor Oli, nor anyone else here, unless one of them happens to live there. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I suppose we are making fun of Aspies. But we pretty much make fun of everyone and everything. I'd view it as discrimination if we didn't make fun of Asperger's. And if your country's laws do apply, as you continue to claim, how exactly would your country go about trying to carry out their court ruling? Mull that one over in your tiny little brain. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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. Anonymous Slashy --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it is down. There are others, and you seem adept at finding proxies, so maybe you should do that. Also, I guarantee at least one IRC client will run on your computer, considering the numerous clients out there and the fact that IRC is an amazingly old protocol. I use a client originally written in 1995. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of Java IRC Clients out there that should be able to be run under IE as long as Java is enabled in IE. Rewrite/Slashy uses library PCs which most likely don't allow ActiveX controls, but might allow Java applications. Rewrite/Slashy try some of those Java IRC programs and see which one works and then post it here and have Dawg join you on that IRC server it works with. Good luck to you, and I hope we can still settle something out of this. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 21:47, 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! Anonymous Slashy 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. --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we can block your access, and we have. Since you utilize proxies to skirt it, you are breaking the law. What you are doing is considered "unauthorized use of computing resources" in almost every country in the western world (and much of the remainder, too). If you wish to continue, you should do so via written correspondence. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You want the article rewritten you say? Do it yourself, we aren't your slaves. And you vandalized many times, need I comb through the page history to prove it for you? --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
And if you aren't willing to do so, then here's all I have to say: Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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! --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if they did, and they found us guilty of breaking their laws, what could they possibly do about it? It's not on their soil. And you haven't even stated what country you're in. The best they could possible do is tell each and every ISP in that country to block our site. But they couldn't shut us down. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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). Anonymous Slashy --Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are safeguards in place, and you are bypassing them illegally. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Our safeguard was banning your IP. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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. Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is sent to you unless you request it. Turn off your computer and go outside. We will not continue sending this page to you, nor this discussion. It doesn't exist then, and it remains on servers in the US. Isn't that simple? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 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! Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you? I have better things to do with my spare time, and can't really think of much off the top of my head. --User:Nintendorulez 22:02, 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! Anonymous Slashy 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. Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty accurate simile to me. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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? Anonymous Slashy 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 ---> Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My areas of interest do not tend to tie in with much of what is written here. I am also not funny. Therefore, it would be difficult for me to write a better article for this. Nobody likes my areas of interest, so I try to keep from talking about them. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 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). Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I initially tried to be respectful and reason with you, but your antics, proxy abuse, and vandalism have led me to decide you don't deserve that respect. Take your ban like a man and quit with the proxies. Get a fucking life already. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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! Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you arne't entitled to condemn him because you've been fucking banned from the site. Codeine isn't. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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! Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You've long-since lost the argument, cheese. Once you resort to personal attacks, you lose. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 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. Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but parody is not an abuse of free speech. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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) --> Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people take offense. I don't give a shit if the entire world's population took offense to it. That doesn't warrant removing the article.
“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! Anonymous Slashy 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! Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you are breaking the law. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite it yourself, goddammit. We aren't your slaves. --User:Nintendorulez 22:39, 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. Anonymous Slashy 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

His accusation is correct. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You want the article rewritten? Fine, go ahead and do so. If you can't write anything funnier, then don't bitch to us about it. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 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. Anonymous Slashy 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)
Slashy, no one here is going to give you what you want. You represent only one opinion. We are not going to alter or remove the article simply because you were offended by it. No one here cares what you think. You are an adult who behaves like a child, and when you become an adult, no one is going to keep treating you like a child and cater to your every whim. Can you say, "feel like shit", Slashy? If I happen to be offended by something, I don't go to court about it, I instead rather ignore it and feel like shit than be full of shit, which is what you are right now: you are full of shit, because you keep waging this worthless war against us that you will never win. If I offended you, I apologize, but think about this: after living in your little fantasy world for so long, perhaps you deserve to be offended. You deserve to be mocked and ridiculed by the community here at Uncyclopedia. You deserve to have reality crashing in upon your paradise, and reminding you what a cruel world this is. And if you think you can get rid of that cruelty by trying to get us to delete an article you hate, all I have to say is tough shit, because that is not happening. But instead of just accepting it like any normal person, you continue to rehash the same tired arguments in a futile attempt to have the article deleted. The opinions of the people here at Uncyclopedia vastly outpower you, Slashy. We will not do what you want. -- 14:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

## Vote for "This IS Over"

Score: +10 Users tired of arguing with a rock
• 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)
• For Though, if Slashy keeps insisting on making an ass of himself, I may still have fun with him from time to time. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For And I already locked it to unregistered users. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Break out the punch, I think that constitutes a resolution! --Sir Jam 18:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment That's a relief. And to go along with the punch, I brought a six-pack and a funnel. -- 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to insure he doesn't try and register an account and edit in a few days, I'm going to go nab Rewrite as a sock account. Now all he can do is read this page and weep. --User:Nintendorulez 23:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For My neighbour claims he's an Assie, but he is drunk more of the time than I am. Plus he has a beautiful wife and I are totally so alone. I secretly hate Assies. --di Mario 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Since I have heaped some more well deserved insults on Slashy since this forum was locked to his cowardly anonymous ass, I thought it would only be fair to let him know that he's welcome to respond on my talk page. Bring it on douche! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• ForI have been trying very hard to ignore this whole, confoundedly stupid arguments. What a waste of time arguing with someone we don't know and refuses to even sign up and argue with us. Technically, I didn't get into all this beause I think carrying an argument over the internet is wasteful. Hopefully we can end all of these problems.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For. I don't have the energy. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For. This was over days ago.-- 23:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Indeed, but Slashy simply didn't accept it as such. -- 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• For Democracy rules. Jboyler 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• For , allthough it turned me into a hypocondriac, I think I'm an aspie, I feel the article is starting to hint insult to me. --Vosnul 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

## I should've gotten here sooner...

I'm an aspie, and I think the article is funny. Jeez. -- 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm an aspie and I don't want to read all this crap. --The fatgoat 08:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not and I don't think that we should start this again. Besides, all this is summarised in The Great Aspie War of Ought Six. Wildy I'm jumping on the bandwagon @You have something to say? 09:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)