Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

09 Dec 2014, 2:13 am

Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No, that would defeat the purpose of having an autism spectrum...the whole point is most people do not have autism, and do not have the struggles autism comes with...I hate these 'aren't we all autistic' articles and what not but I guess I will look at it.


Totally agree, I can't stand when people say that phrase, all they're doing by taking that stance is minimalizing our struggles, and using themselves as an example of how we 'can do better if we try'. It's a stance that is taken by egotists and ignorant fools who couldn't understand the spectrum if it slapped them in the face. To top it off, it's offensive when people say that, because it makes us sound like a bunch of complainers who are lazy and want what they like to call a 'free ride' through life (which is yet another ignorant view, but that's another discussion).


From what I've seen, most often that isn't the intent, rather the intent is to be comforting by saying "you aren't different."


I'm with others on this, we all know that we actually are different, and people telling us that we aren't is just another phrase that minimalizes our struggles. Whether that's the intent or not, that is the result.
The fact will always remain, we are different, it's generally obvious to others and sometimes even us, and if we weren't different, there wouldn't be any reason to have groups like this in the first place. Afterall, there aren't any support groups for having a normal brain, is there? And why is that? Simple; because it's normal, there's nothing hindering about it.


Basically what B19 said. Remember, just because NTs fail to empathize doesn't mean they are out to get us or whatnot. We don't need to demonize them.


Funny, I don't remember demonizing anyone, nor did I claim they were 'out to get us', I've simply outlined that they're wrong in their assumptions, and that those assumptions are off-putting.


"It's a stance that is taken by egotists and ignorant fools who couldn't understand the spectrum if it slapped them in the face."


If you call that 'demonizing' them, then you obviously can't tell the difference between 'demonizing' someone, and calling them out and exposing their ignorance.
Fact: There is a spectrum, because people display a number of attributes that fall outside the specified normality, not just one attribute, but multiple. People that say that everyone is on the spectrum based on one or two traits that doesn't even qualify them for diagnosis on the Autism Spectrum, is obviously ignorant of not only why the spectrum exists in the first place, but also ignorant of the obvious difference between us and everyone else, and they are fooling themselves if they think a few similarities qualify them to be on that spectrum. People on the spectrum have real neurological differences that cause probably 90% (or more) of the problems that we have, and they are so far beyond just the tiny bit that people off of the spectrum deal with that it's not even funny.
The Autism Spectrum is not a fan club, it's a diagnosis, and it's a tool to allow people to understand to what degree that someone has Autism. Do people exhibit a symptom here and there? Sure, but does that qualify them for a diagnosis (and in extension, to be put on the spectrum) of an Autistic Spectrum Disorder? Absolutely not. So again, people who believe that a tiny similarity automatically puts someone on the spectrum is obviously ignorant of real fact and they are fooling themselves into continuing to believe such nonsense.


"If you call that 'demonizing' them, then you obviously can't tell the difference between 'demonizing' someone, and calling them out and exposing their ignorance." You aren't calling anyone out except yourself for your own lack of understanding. 1

I think you fail to understand what the concept of a spectrum is2. The reason autism is classified as a spectrum is not to separate from NT, that exists with any diagnosis, but to acknowledge that it smoothly blends into the general population and there is no hard line between on spectrum and off spectrum. It's like the green light spectrum, when does it stop being green and start being blue? Most visible light has some green light in it, even it's not on the green spectrum persay. Arbitrary it can be argued to be on spectrum as well because it's just an extension of the same continuum, there is no dividing line.3


1. I understand this topic very well, you're not understanding what I'm saying, by any stretch of the imagination.

2. I understand what a spectrum is quite well, it seems to be you who doesn't understand what a spectrum is; The Autistic Spectrum is a spectrum that was designed to allow diagnosticians to diagnose the degree of autism spectrum disorders in a patient, nothing more, nothing less.

3. Yes, there is a dividing line; Autistic Spectrum Disorders. If someone doesn't qualify for a diagnosis under the Autistic Spectrum, then they are not on the spectrum of those disorders, it's that simple, how can you not understand that?

Let's say for a moment that you were correct (not saying you are, just making a valid point). Would you then also classify everyone as the following, because of these similarities?
Schizophrenic : Because we hear our own voice in our head.
Physical Abuser : Because everyone gets angry.
OCD : Because they prefer a clean house over a messy one.

The list could go on and on and on and never actually reach any real resolution, but then we'd be back to "everyone is the same" and if that were really true, there would be no diagnosis, and in extension, no basis for comparing either side to the other, and since that wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be on this site because we'd already have all the support we'd need from the rest of society. But that's not the case.
So, I say again, there's a huge difference between being on the spectrum and not being on the spectrum, it doesn't matter how fine that line may get in the more milder forms, it still ends somewhere. If it didn't, there would be no diagnosis. The fact that there is a diagnosis proves that I'm right.
No matter how badly you want to believe that everyone is somewhat like us and that we can be accepted on that basis, it's just not so. That's reality.

Quote:
It's like the green light spectrum, when does it stop being green and start being blue? Most visible light has some green light in it, even it's not on the green spectrum persay.

You do realize how ridiculous you sound here, right? If you really want to use light as an example, fine, I'll even use your green-blue example:
Light has three primary colors, all of which are their own color, none of which are placed into each other without some other color to connect the dots. Green, in it's absolute form, is fully green, there is no other color within it, as is blue. Yes, there is a spectrum between the two, but there is still the absolute values, they're either green, or blue. There is a dividing line between them. So not only is your analogy flawed, it also proves my point.


1. I understand what you're saying now (misunderstood exactly what meant specifically by saying the spectrum exists because by focusing too much on the term spectrum and the discussion), I just disagree with your reasoning. I disagree that autism spectrum necessarily must be seen as a distinct subspectrum of humanity as whole rather than seen as general method of characterization. I'll explain why in the next point. Also, it's pretty clear you don't understand what I'm saying either.

2. Okay fine, maybe I treated spectrums as spaces when I should have treated them as sets. I was wrong with the reason for classifying autism as spectrum, but that's not because I don't understand the general concept of spectrum. Your comment shows no understanding of the concept of a spectrum though. Anyway, while it's correct that spectrum implies a range of functioning and is used as measuring such, the actual reasoning for the classifying autism as a spectrum is to connect disorders which where once thought of as separate, but regardless, it's not true the idea of the autistic spectrum was created to separate the autistic from the neurotypical, that idea existed regardless of it being classified as spectrum or not, more things where just added to the scope of autism by classifying it as a spectrum disorder rather than just autistic disorder. The idea with everyone being on the spectrum is the same components which can be used to place autistic people can be extended to the population as a whole, it's just using the same classification, but removing the boundary line from the population as a spectrum is already formed between the autistic and neurotypical through the broader autism phenotype. The idea assumes the autistic spectrum is a space rather than a set. In terms of linear algebra, the autistic spectrum would be a specific inner product space whose set of points is all of humanity, rather than a subset, but non-subspace of humanity, and it's orthogonal basis are autistic traits. It's what traits you decide to measure people upon which makes it the specific spectrum, not what's being covered. Sorry, that's the best way I can explain the concept.

3. That isn't a dividing line, that's a subset. The dividing line would be people who is they are any more autistic they would be considered autistic, and any less autistic they would be considered NT. There is no such line.

"Let's say for a moment that you were correct (not saying you are, just making a valid point). Would you then also classify everyone as the following, because of these similarities?" This makes it vary obvious you did not understand what I was saying because that's not my assumption. Here's what the actual assumption is:
a. you're aren't schizophrenic, you're on the schizophrenic spectrum because everyone has delusions of differing severity, and if they are severe enough they become classified as psychotic, which is a component of schizophrenia.
b. everyone has abusive tendencies so everyone exists on an abusive spectrum, some are more abusive than others
c. that has absolutely nothing to do with OCD, anyway, everyone exists on an OCD spectrum because everyone has anxious thoughts to different degrees of prevalence and everyone has methods of coping with anxiety, but not everyone has OCD.


"There is a dividing line between them. So not only is your analogy flawed, it also proves my point." No, there isn't a dividing line, it's obvious you don't understand what I mean by dividing line. Eg. is Cyan green or blue? Make a choice. Take the color half way between cyan and the chosen color and ask the question again with the new color. Repeat ad infinitum. There is no concrete point where it stops being green and starts being blue, there is no dividing line between them.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

09 Dec 2014, 3:20 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I think I've created a monster LOL

I hope you guys are bosom buddies outside of WP. Then you punch a clock and the arguments start. Then you argue for eight hours. Then you punch the clock again. Then you have a beer afterwards.

Ever see the cartoon with the sheepdog and the wolf? Warner Brothers circa 1962.

The sheepdog and the wolf are buddies, just as was described above. They battle over sheep for eight hours, then have a beer after "work."


I don't know that person in any way, don't care to know them, and I'm done arguing with them, their last post is only an attempt at this point to start another argument and I've already said I'm done with it. He keeps repeating himself and ultimately making statements and then denying that they're even statements that need proof (as with the 'default' bull).
Personally, I don't socialize with people who have a closed mind.


_________________
Writer. Author.


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

09 Dec 2014, 3:37 am

Ganondox wrote:
No, there isn't a dividing line, it's obvious you don't understand what I mean by dividing line. Eg. is Cyan green or blue? Make a choice. Take the color half way between cyan and the chosen color and ask the question again with the new color. Repeat ad infinitum. There is no concrete point where it stops being green and starts being blue, there is no dividing line between them


Again, your analogy of a color spectrum is severely flawed, I suggest you look up what constitutes a color spectrum and how it's put together.
Pure Blue (as pure green) has no other color in it, it's one of the three primary colors and that's precisely why, because you cannot get closer to that color without going into a totally different spectrum of light.
Furthermore, you've totally ignored where I stated that there is a spectrum between the two colors, but once again, each color has it's pure value.
The color spectrum explained
Colors explained further
I'm done with this with you as well, if you decide to ignore the factual color spectrum (of visible light), then there's no point in responding because like 'moromillas', you'd just be repeating yourself.


_________________
Writer. Author.


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

09 Dec 2014, 4:31 am

Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
No, there isn't a dividing line, it's obvious you don't understand what I mean by dividing line. Eg. is Cyan green or blue? Make a choice. Take the color half way between cyan and the chosen color and ask the question again with the new color. Repeat ad infinitum. There is no concrete point where it stops being green and starts being blue, there is no dividing line between them


Again, your analogy of a color spectrum is severely flawed, I suggest you look up what constitutes a color spectrum and how it's put together.
Pure Blue (as pure green) has no other color in it, it's one of the three primary colors and that's precisely why, because you cannot get closer to that color without going into a totally different spectrum of light.
Furthermore, you've totally ignored where I stated that there is a spectrum between the two colors, but once again, each color has it's pure value.
The color spectrum explained
Colors explained further
I'm done with this with you as well, if you decide to ignore the factual color spectrum (of visible light), then there's no point in responding because like 'moromillas', you'd just be repeating yourself.


Congratulations on once again completely failing to see the point. I'm done talking with you, I rephrased myself and you still don't get it and insist you are right because you are ignorant of what's actually being said.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

09 Dec 2014, 5:37 am

Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
No, there isn't a dividing line, it's obvious you don't understand what I mean by dividing line. Eg. is Cyan green or blue? Make a choice. Take the color half way between cyan and the chosen color and ask the question again with the new color. Repeat ad infinitum. There is no concrete point where it stops being green and starts being blue, there is no dividing line between them


Again, your analogy of a color spectrum is severely flawed, I suggest you look up what constitutes a color spectrum and how it's put together.
Pure Blue (as pure green) has no other color in it, it's one of the three primary colors and that's precisely why, because you cannot get closer to that color without going into a totally different spectrum of light.
Furthermore, you've totally ignored where I stated that there is a spectrum between the two colors, but once again, each color has it's pure value.
The color spectrum explained
Colors explained further
I'm done with this with you as well, if you decide to ignore the factual color spectrum (of visible light), then there's no point in responding because like 'moromillas', you'd just be repeating yourself.


Congratulations on once again completely failing to see the point. I'm done talking with you, I rephrased myself and you still don't get it and insist you are right because you are ignorant of what's actually being said.


Again with the ignorance bullsh*t :roll: , I wish I could say I'm surprised but considering the fact that you're totally lost on the fact that I've known what you were saying all along and have countered the argument while pointing out why the analogy was flawed, it really doesn't strike me as even an interesting note. You used a very bad example to try to make your point, and then failed to see why it was a bad example, that's your problem, not mine, and it's rather ironic that you call me ignorant for that reason.
So, you're done talking with me, good for you, wish I could give you a clap but my hands are too busy doing more important things.


_________________
Writer. Author.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Dec 2014, 5:39 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
cant we at least be half way cordial.if I didn't know better I would have thought this was a forum for three year olds first learning to express themselves apropriatley


Are you ignoring all the more civil comments? I see a couple people getting into it a little...everyone else seems to be being perfectly civil though...perhaps focus on the more civil discussion instead of argument. Not disagreeing people should be civil though.
you have not been mean,i honestly have never seen you be rude to anyone.your a highly decent person.

the few rude individuals know who they are,and most posters in this thread are fine


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Dec 2014, 5:46 am

alex wrote:
Yeah, we should keep this discussion cordial. . .
im glad someone agrees,i will have to let the webmaster know what good poster you are.wait a minute........... that's right you are the webmaster ha ha ha


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Dec 2014, 11:29 am

I believe the use of the "color" spectrum, while not precise, could serve as a good framework for delineating various types of autism.

Visual illustration is very valuable in education.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Dec 2014, 11:57 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I believe the use of the "color" spectrum, while not precise, could serve as a good framework for delineating various types of autism.

Visual illustration is very valuable in education.
there was an old theory that used the example of an nucleus of an Atom.even more simple to explain

classic autism/kanners syndrome was a planet and aspergers,CDD,retts,PDD-NOS,and many non verbal learning disabilities were moons that orbited the main planet.

I saw this in a book some 15 years ago and I am not saying this theory is right but it is another way to look at things


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

09 Dec 2014, 6:56 pm

Jaden wrote:
their last post is only an attempt at this point to start another argument and I've already said I'm done with it.

Ad hominem. How convenient it would be, to simply suggest that others "just want to argue."



Jaden wrote:
He keeps repeating himself
there's no point in responding because like 'moromillas', you'd just be repeating yourself.

Yes, people keep repeating and reiterating different things to you, very patiently, very painstakingly, when they shouldn't have to waste all that time in the first place. The common denominator here, IS YOU, you are the person that others are having to repeat things to, you're the one that thinks everyone is just insulting you.



Jaden wrote:
and ultimately making statements and then denying that they're even statements that need proof (as with the 'default' bull).

I am absolutely gobsmacked by your level of ignorance here, and the sheer temerity needed to take your own opinions as fact. No, it's not "bull", the default position is that people don't have disorders. You can't say to someone "Well, prove to me that you don't have a disorder," that's shifting nonsense.



Jaden wrote:
Again, your analogy of a color spectrum is severely flawed, I suggest you look up what constitutes a color spectrum and how it's put together.
Pure Blue (as pure green) has no other color in it, it's one of the three primary colors and that's precisely why, because you cannot get closer to that color without going into a totally different spectrum of light.
Furthermore, you've totally ignored where I stated that there is a spectrum between the two colors, but once again, each color has it's pure value.

I would politely ask you to stop saying things like this, it's embarrassing. That you've no problem saying this is troubling. We're actually a minority, where others only rarely come into contact with us, and thus one person can represent many. When people see "Pure Blue, also pure green, no other colour, the primary colours, and you can't get closer. There you go, I'm right." along with the tag "Asperger's" it frames all of us in such a poor fashion, people will look at that and think "omg, is that really what they(Aspergians) all think."

Multiple frequencies are either absorbed or reflected by an object. The frequencies that are reflected by the object, is what you pick up with your retina, for the brain to interpret as colour. The multiple frequencies being picked up in different amounts, is why we have such a vast array of different shades of colours.

The vast shades of colour, is a good analogy for the vast variations within the Autistic Spectrum, which yes, extends into the typical population.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Dec 2014, 7:46 pm

I have never seen such non fact based arguments with personal attacks to distract the reader from realizing that most of these posts aren't saying anything


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

09 Dec 2014, 9:33 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
I have never seen such non fact based arguments with personal attacks to distract the reader from realizing that most of these posts aren't saying anything


I happen to agree at this point, I've made my position clear (whether people understand it or not is irrelevant at this point), and I'm leaving it at that. It's just too bad others can't do the same.


_________________
Writer. Author.


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

09 Dec 2014, 11:05 pm

Jaden wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
I have never seen such non fact based arguments with personal attacks to distract the reader from realizing that most of these posts aren't saying anything

I happen to agree at this point, I've made my position clear (whether people understand it or not is irrelevant at this point), and I'm leaving it at that. It's just too bad others can't do the same.

He said non-fact based with personal attacks. You agree that there shouldn't be personal attacks, after you go on an ad hominem tirade, then say it's everyone else doing personal attacks? Are you kidding? You don't see a contradiction here?



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

09 Dec 2014, 11:43 pm

Moromillas wrote:
Jaden wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
I have never seen such non fact based arguments with personal attacks to distract the reader from realizing that most of these posts aren't saying anything

I happen to agree at this point, I've made my position clear (whether people understand it or not is irrelevant at this point), and I'm leaving it at that. It's just too bad others can't do the same.

He said non-fact based with personal attacks. You agree that there shouldn't be personal attacks, after you go on an ad hominem tirade, then say it's everyone else doing personal attacks? Are you kidding? You don't see a contradiction here?


And yet again, you're putting words in my mouth and trying to restart an argument that is over. The only time I ever responded in insult is when you insulted me first, and now you're trying to say that I've somehow denied that and contradicted myself, and only in an effort to argue. Grow up, get over it, and move on, instead of making baseless claims about my posts. If you want to discuss the topic, then go discuss the topic, but if all you're going to do is continue your little "let's piss people off" escapade, then fine, but you're making a complete ass of yourself.
I told you and others that I was done with this argument, and I meant it, after this response, I will no longer respond to you, period. Rant and complain all you want, see where it gets you.


_________________
Writer. Author.


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

10 Dec 2014, 1:27 am

Jaden wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
Jaden wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
I have never seen such non fact based arguments with personal attacks to distract the reader from realizing that most of these posts aren't saying anything

I happen to agree at this point, I've made my position clear (whether people understand it or not is irrelevant at this point), and I'm leaving it at that. It's just too bad others can't do the same.

He said non-fact based with personal attacks. You agree that there shouldn't be personal attacks, after you go on an ad hominem tirade, then say it's everyone else doing personal attacks? Are you kidding? You don't see a contradiction here?

And yet again, you're putting words in my mouth and trying to restart an argument that is over. The only time I ever responded in insult is when you insulted me first, and now you're trying to say that I've somehow denied that and contradicted myself, and only in an effort to argue. Grow up, get over it, and move on, instead of making baseless claims about my posts. If you want to discuss the topic, then go discuss the topic, but if all you're going to do is continue your little "let's piss people off" escapade, then fine, but you're making a complete ass of yourself.
I told you and others that I was done with this argument, and I meant it, after this response, I will no longer respond to you, period. Rant and complain all you want, see where it gets you.

Light's blade, calm down.

This again? No one is insulting you, people can go back, look at the previous posts and see that's not true. Why not try to address some of the points I made, instead of going after me, there's no need for that ad hom here.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

10 Dec 2014, 2:17 am

Moromillas wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
Jaden wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
I have never seen such non fact based arguments with personal attacks to distract the reader from realizing that most of these posts aren't saying anything

I happen to agree at this point, I've made my position clear (whether people understand it or not is irrelevant at this point), and I'm leaving it at that. It's just too bad others can't do the same.

He said non-fact based with personal attacks. You agree that there shouldn't be personal attacks, after you go on an ad hominem tirade, then say it's everyone else doing personal attacks? Are you kidding? You don't see a contradiction here?

And yet again, you're putting words in my mouth and trying to restart an argument that is over. The only time I ever responded in insult is when you insulted me first, and now you're trying to say that I've somehow denied that and contradicted myself, and only in an effort to argue. Grow up, get over it, and move on, instead of making baseless claims about my posts. If you want to discuss the topic, then go discuss the topic, but if all you're going to do is continue your little "let's piss people off" escapade, then fine, but you're making a complete ass of yourself.
I told you and others that I was done with this argument, and I meant it, after this response, I will no longer respond to you, period. Rant and complain all you want, see where it gets you.

Light's blade, calm down.

This again? No one is insulting you, people can go back, look at the previous posts and see that's not true. Why not try to address some of the points I made, instead of going after me, there's no need for that ad hom here.


What are you talking about "light's blade"?
Also, you and others here have said that I'm running on 'ignorance' because I've shown that I've researched this topic and have given my opinion as well as the very real facts behind that opinion, which for reasons that are beyond me, are being totally ignored and replaced with heresay and speculation.
Furthermore, I've addressed your points and I could continue to do so ad infinitum and it would yield nothing, and for one simple reason, you're not interested in hearing other people's thoughts about it, you just want to ignore what's being said and then argue pointlessly about it while maintaining that you're correct despite that you have yet to share any evidence to that fact whatsoever.
Lastly, nobody's 'going after you'. I'm responding to your continued participation in a series of comments that you were initially not even a part of until after you addressed me. If you have a problem with the fact I respond to someone who messages me (and misrepresents my messages, I might add), that's your issue, not mine. You've addressed me, i've responded, it's that simple, nothing more, nothing less.
Now, once again, I'm done with this argument. You can either continue to message me and then try to say that my response means I'm 'going after you', or you can let the matter drop like an adult and go on your merry little way. The choice is ultimately yours so I'd think rather hard on it if I were you.


_________________
Writer. Author.