Arguing on the internet is like...etc.
Maybe you actually are retarded? Food for thought. Heh.
Arguing on the internet is like...etc.
Maybe you actually are retarded? Food for thought. Heh.
Oh right. What a HUGE lie you exposed. It's as if you're so desirous to have this situation play out the way you'd find most amusing that you're pretending some big lie was exposed when in reality it was practically nothing. Seriously, you're comparing a person who straight up lies about a condition to a person who had an expert, but not a medical doctor, tell them they had a condition. That's just not the same fucking thing at all. What sort of thing would I need to say to drill that point home to you people?
An apple might as well be an orange if it means Baldwin gets to view the situation the way he'd prefer. LOL.
Last edited by bighead384; 11-04-2012 at 08:05 AM.
When they said "sit down", I stood up.
I stopped posting on the subject because my input was no longer necessary, not because I believe a single word you have to say, Bighead. You're obsessed with attention and you're clearly trying to fill some sort of personal need you're not getting offline. No one likes you and you keep coming back for reasons unknown.
And a medical doctor's input is necessary for a medical diagnosis. Just FYI. But either way, you approached this whole situation in a seriously questionable manner. I think it's pretty telling that you're most concerned with pushing your own message and not, you know, apologizing to all the people on the forum with Asperger's whom you've basically just taken a shit on.
Last edited by Little_Miss_1565; 11-04-2012 at 08:55 AM.
I'd like to start my response by raising the question: Does 1565 (and unfortunately several others here) know what the word "intent" means? Or, if she does, does she have the basic skills to make a simple determination about another person's intent?
Let's establish a simple criteria: When a person intends to lie for attention, that would mean that they've started a dialogue by making a claim that they are fully aware is untrue, or a claim that is supported by little or no evidence.
Since an expert told me she is confident that I have Asperger's, isn't it pretty obvious right off the bat that this criteria doesn't apply here? And since my initial claim was only that an expert told me I have Asperger's, how could one insist that my intent was to lie from the get-go when that is 100% true?
Simple stuff here, folks.
Last edited by bighead384; 11-04-2012 at 09:33 AM.
When they said "sit down", I stood up.
What you have actually done is the equivalent of crying wolf.
You said you had it - we believed you.
Then you said you didn't. So we stopped.
Then you said you had it again and expected us to follow. If you had it in the first place you could have just explained the process of diagnosis instead of backpedaling and then re/forward/pedaling.
This post seems to be regarding me being confusing. Which I was. I just got annoyed and made this thread because I figured you guys were gonna believe whatever you want to believe. Don't see what this has to do with the current issue on hand: whether or not my intent from the get-go was to lie for attention.
When they said "sit down", I stood up.
Quand ils ont dis "Vous vous asseyez," je me suis levé.