Merged Teacher leads kindergarten class to vote boy with Asperger's out of class

[GlennB]

Well now, this is getting somewhere and it's a welcome change from "I'm stabbing you through my keyboard".

I'd like to read more about it. Any suggestions?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean read more about how face-to-face social interaction can be difficult for some AS people?

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean read more about how face-to-face social interaction can be difficult for some AS people?

No; the Torch-and-Pitchfork Brigade has that part covered. I mean about the text communication being easier and beneficial.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You've actually trimmed a couple of those, which seems slightly dishonest.

I linked to the entire article, so your claim is empty and rude.

Number two, for example, was a statement that Aspergers is not a disabling condition. I took exception to the certainty expressed, when it is considered a disability, as you note, but is also the topic if debate as to the worth of the label 'disability'. It is not a throw away term if you are experiencing. The word 'affliction' is rather loaded too, don't you think? Or is it the people who use words rather the people they are used about (or at, or against) who now get to decide how offensive they are? I'd rather you didn't say I was 'afflicted' with Aspergers, I will take offence.

He said it was not an affliction, so why are you getting worked up about what it's not? As for words being "offensive" I'd really rather not play games deciding "who" gets to "decide" what is offensive. I, for one, prefer not to take offense when none is intended.

For number 1, 'mental illness' is not a throw away term either and is not particularly helpful when discussing Asperger's. Certainly, in the UK, the mental health services don't consider it to be under their umbrella, despite the comorbid symptoms of depression and anxiety. Of course, changing terms does not change attitudes, but the general understanding of mental illness tends toward delusional thinking, which is not a characteristic of Aspergers.

In what world does mental illness tend towards delusional thinking? Delusional thinking is, well, delusional thinking. You seem to have a misguided notion of the meaning of mental illness.

3. Not every neurotypical person is articulate. Nor is every Aspergian. We are not an homogenous group. I find it offensive to be demoted from an individual to a syndrome or disease or illness or affliction (because as you say, whatever term you use the attitude is still offensive).

Well, good thing you weren't "demoted" anywhere. The Autism society writes, "What distinguishes Asperger's Disorder from Autism Disorder is the severity of the symptoms and the absence of language delays. Children with Asperger's Disorder may be only mildly affected and frequently have good language and cognitive skills."

If you have a beef, take it up with them. Better still, accept the fact that we sometimes need to speak about groups in general terms, and don't get all fussed until somebody speaks of you as an individual and insists you must have a particular characteristic associated with the group.

4. 'Marker' does not bother me - perhaps that's the source of your confusion. 'The marker' bothers me (as does your trimming of my bolded parts, previously noted). There is no single marker and autism is considered to have three key 'markers', if you will.

Checkmite was presenting a simple contrast in regards to the incident being discussed, not writing an essay on how to complete a diagnosis. You are being overly sensitive.

5. "Not learning or participating in day-to-day tasks and activities" - which take place in a classroom, a social setting, where people interact. Difficulties in social settings invariably lead to difficulties in tasks or activities in those settings. There are also other aspects of aspergers which will impinge on learning or participating in tasks or activities where no consideration is made for the autistic mind.

Right, the issue is one of social interaction rather than the tasks themselves. His point, which seemed clear to me and is backed up by the Autism Society, is that cognitive delay by definition is not part of the disorder.

6. A teacher is not, or should not be, an untrained observer.

At best the only thing I would expect a teacher to do is suggest that somebody higher up the chain in the system work with the parents and child to investigate it further.

"Some of my best friends are black"? Seriously? You're right, it doesn't make you an expert. Now you know three individuals who are aspergians. You're still not an expert, but I haven't given up on you.

I anticipated the question , "Have you met anyone with Asperger's?" and answered it in advance, so spare me the "Seriously?" lecture. That aside, I really don't care whether you have given up on me or not. I consider your responses to be overly sensitive and made with without any regard to what Checkmite was trying to say.

 

[GlennB]

No; the Torch-and-Pitchfork Brigade has that part covered. I mean about the text communication being easier and beneficial.

Well, I think there are clues in my previous few posts. Of course text isn't a be-all for such AS people. If it's a question of what's for dinner or what time to be around for your lift to school tomorrow, then the answer is a matter of fact and verbal communication is usually appropriate.

If, however, the issue has an emotional content like explaining why the student is really not entitled to spend their hobby allowance on late night burgers and pop then it can be better to defuse the situation by putting it in writing. Written words don't go away, they don't change meaning, they can be quoted. In short writing is, in a way, both clear and trustworthy in a world of subtleties that AS people can often find hard to fathom.

 

[Skwinty]

Not necessarily. Kids have a right to an education, even if they've got Asperger's. Quite often there simply isn't an alternative available, or the only way to get one is to allow the child to cause problems in a regular setting until the school's forced to admit there's a problem. I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK the education authority has a duty of care to meet every child's educational needs; it's up to them to provide a suitable environment. If they choose not to do so, it's an abdication of responsibility, made even worse if they then expect the parents to take the child out of school altogether. Parents don't have a lot of power in these situations, so blaming them for allowing a bad situation to arise is both unfair and pointless.

Dave

I agree that every child has a right to education.

If the child in question was mine, I would be doing the best I could do to ensure that my child received the individual attention the child required and not allowing my childs condition to interfere with the education of others. Not seeking the appropriate conditions for my child would be unfair and pointless to my child and the other children involved. The parents cannot leave the responsibility to the school or state.

There have been a lot of accusations of ignorance, offensive statements and lack of empathy coming from those who admit to the condition. I can empathise with those individuals who feel this way.

On the other hand, we who do not suffer the condition, are told we need to educate ourselves about this condition. When we refer to the available medical literature, we are told this is not good enough. When we try and communicate with the sufferers themselves, we are met with hostility and allegations of not caring.

This too I can understand because the available literature says that this is what to expect. So we are damned if we and damned if we dont.

So it should not come as a surprise if most non sufferers who are not intimately involved with the condition end up not caring.
Now, I don't get to meet with people who suffer from AS and I would not even try to guess on an internet forum who has the condition and who doesn't.

I know that my approach to this issue would be much the same as yours if my child had this condition but that isn't the case and i am trying to understand the issue. I am sorry if it is not good enough for some, but right now it's the best I can do.

Perhaps I should just continue lurking and not express my opinion.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the child in question was mine, I would be doing the best I could do to ensure that my child received the individual attention the child required and not allowing my childs condition to interfere with the education of others. Not seeking the appropriate conditions for my child would be unfair and pointless to my child and the other children involved. The parents cannot leave the responsibility to the school or state.

Fine; we all start from that approach. But, depressingly often, we run into problems. Because, as you're becoming aware, autism and related conditions are complex and difficult to understand, and at some point we encounter someone who's skim-read DSM-IV, misinterpreted a statement about good language skills as meaning good verbal communication (and, let's face it, it's understandable; how many people really understand that the two aren't the same?), decided on that basis that children with Asperger's Syndrome are fully capable of functioning in a normal classroom without special support, and are in a position to deny resources on the basis of their misinformed opinion. The choices are then sharply restricted, and none of the options are good. Do you withdraw your child from education, thus removing the problem from their point of view? Then nothing will get done, and your child will be hampered for life over and above his existing difficulties; if you're really lucky, the truant officers will get involved. Or do you take the one option actually offered, of a setting you know to be grossly inappropriate, and hope that the problems the system encounters with your child will be enough to bring about some kind of attitude adjustment? Then maybe something will get done in the long run, but meanwhile the tittle-tattle brigade will whisper behind your back about how much you're allowing your child to disrupt other people's learning. That's usually the choice it boils down to.

And that's the source for a lot of the hostility. There are too many people in positions of authority making pronouncements about autism from a basis of misinformation and ignorance, and they have a devastating effect on the lives of people with autism and those who care for them.

There have been a lot of accusations of ignorance, offensive statements and lack of empathy coming from those who admit to the condition. I can empathise with those individuals who feel this way.

On the other hand, we who do not suffer the condition, are told we need to educate ourselves about this condition. When we refer to the available medical literature, we are told this is not good enough. When we try and communicate with the sufferers themselves, we are met with hostility and allegations of not caring.

It's a little more complex than that. DSM-IV, which has been widely referenced in this thread, is no more than a high-level bullet-point list designed as an aid for classification for experts. It's virtually useless as a starter's guide to autism, because it assumes a considerable depth of knowledge and understanding. There's a good deal of literature available; a good starting point would be Uta Frith's Autism: explaining the enigma, or Lorna Wing's The autistic spectrum: a guide for parents and professionals, or any one of many other good books on the subject. But don't expect to learn anything useful in a day or two; it's a complex set of conditions, and it takes a lot of mental effort to understand.

But describing what's going on in this thread as "try[ing] and communicate with the sufferers" is a bit disingenuous. The problem is lecturing the sufferers. And, yes, it is offensive to tell people with Asperger's, who've had difficulties communicating for their whole lives, that they're articulate; you might as well tell someone in a wheelchair that they're perfectly capable of getting up and walking. It suggests that they have no real difficulties, but simply aren't trying hard enough.

Perhaps I should just continue lurking and not express my opinion.

False dichotomy; lurking and expressing opinions are not the only options. There are people here who have been living with autism, in one way or another, for decades; who've worked with it, studied it, spoken with world experts in it, and found ways that people with autism can live lives that work for them.

Perhaps, instead of telling us your opinions of us then complaining because we don't like them, you could try to get to know us first.

Dave

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Dave,
First, let me thank you for your logical and calm answers to my questions and opinions. I apologise to all who thought I was lecturing them on the conditions they suffer with on a daily basis. I meant no offense to anyone as I was trying to understand what all the commotion was about, especially Dancing Davids response to Checkmite.

As I said previously, I had no idea who suffers from AS and would not have ventured a guess as I would more than likely been completely wrong. I will make an effort to investigate AS further so I can better understand the issue.

Thanks once again for clarifying the situation in a rational manner.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It seems to me that you have a problem with people discussing your condition in a clinically-detached way. Seriously - that's your problem, not mine. I have PTSD. I take medicines for it, even. It's a mental illness. Literally: it's an illness that affects the way the mind works. Terms like "mental illness", "affliction", "condition", "disease"...these are neutral terms and they're objectively accurate. They're not pejoratives, they're not slurs. I didn't call autistic individuals "a bunch of retards" or anything of that nature. If you have a certain way you'd like me to refer to the condition that's fine and its reasonable to air your preferences - but I'm not going to be badgered into apologizing for using medically-accurate terminology just because somebody I don't know who happened to be listening in would rather it be called something else. That's a completely unreasonable demand.

Affliction: A cause of pain, distress or suffering. Not relevant to AS, offensive to me. I am offended, you could apologise, but you look for things not to apologise for rather than recognise that I am offended. I understand some people are getting tired of being told they shouldn't be offensive to other people - you can't have a go at blacks, at women, at mexicans, at cripples, when will it end? Now it's the autists fcs.

Well, patients who have Asperger's Syndrome have to have some things that can be said to be true of all of them, otherwise it's pointless to say they all have Asperger's Syndrome. That's what a "syndrome" is, a set of signs and symptoms that always go together in patients who have it. What is the diagnostic criteria - the standard that physicians use - have to say about individuals with Asperger's? Amongst the positive symptoms, there are other qualities:

Thank you for defining syndrome. I'll pretend that wasn't deliberately offensive and that you really thought the definition was in dispute.

In other words - they can talk, they can converse. They are capable of oral communication that people around them can understand without difficulty. Isn't that what "articulate" means? It's accurate - so again, I shouldn't have to apologize for using it.

Again, the apology would be for the offence. Finding things you needn't apologise for doesn't diminish the offence. Articulate is defined as "able to express thoughts and feelings easily and clearly, or showing this quality". It may perhaps be used merely to mean 'capable of speech' but I doubt you would it use outside this thread to describe someone with a poor vocabulary, for example, or a difficulty understanding thoughts and feelings, let alone expressing them. Aspergians generally have a good vocabulary, as it happens, but are frequently not articulate in a great many situations. I experience selective mutism, as do some other aspergians. There are times when I am not articulate, not even by the basic and uncommon definition you chose.

Well hey, you self-identify as having Asperger's. You seem well-spoken (I hope you don't find that offensive). You seem capable of being able to debate here at a skill level indistinguishable from anyone else in this thread. How old are you? What allowances or accommodations were made for your autism in your primary school classes that allowed you to develop into the fine, adjusted person you seem to be today?

No, I do not find your description of me as well-spoken to be offensive. I find your asking me that offensive, if you can see the difference. Once again, inventing things not to apologise for does not diminish the offensiveness of your original ignorant, patronising generalisations. For the record, I do not 'self-identify', I was diagnosed by someone who knows considerably more about AS than you do. Nice try at a wee slur there, though. Might as well pile 'em in if you plan on standing your ground on the whole 'enough PC! there has to be some group of people I can be rude about' thing.

I don't care for your questions, they don't advance this thread or the matter of your offensive remarks that you refuse to apologise for. I believe my age is in my profile, is it not? It may not be. In what way did you imagine an aspergian wouldn't be able to do this? Oh silly me, that's right, you know little and understand less...

Note: I'm asking this because you are implying that some kind of special consideration is required to enable a child with Asperger's to properly learn or complete tasks properly. The DSM-IV suggests that's not the case. If you have a better perspective (being a patient, after all) and would like to offer to correct such of my statements as you feel are incorrect, that's also great and I'll accept any correction - but I'm not going to apologize for using the DSM as my guidepost absent any other information at the time.

I am not implying anything, you were defending your right to be offensive if I recall. If it helps, I'll state explicitly that 'special' consideration should be given in schools to children with 'special' needs. I don't care for the term myself, but I don't plan on taking on the educational establishment. The DSM-IV is not an educational manual, it's a diagnostic tool. I have already commented on ways in which aspergians might find school more difficult than an average neurotypical child, which can be alleviated by well-trained teaching staff (who should be viewing all their pupils as individuals with individual needs).

Well that's fine, but if you disagree with the way teachers are or are not trained today that's not something I need to apologize for.

And funnily enough, that wasn't what I sought an apology for. In case you've remarkably missed it again, it was for your ignorant patronising generalisations. Something on the form of "I'm sorry, I spoke from a position of ignorance, no offence was intended". It's not difficult.

I swear, this has to be the first time in my life that I've ever seen somebody get offended at being called articulate, capable, and intelligent, much less demanded that I apologize for referring to them in such positive terms. Who are you, Rodney Dangerfield? Honestly: how would you rather be described?

Swear all you like, though I would have thought an oath had little place in here - even less than your strawman. I have not demanded an apology - what kind of uppity aspergian would I be if I demanded to be treated like a human being? I do say again that your ignorant, patronising generalisations were offensive. I would apologise, in your place, but I had to learn social mores, and communication skills, from the ground up, whereas the neurotypical often imagine that theirs are sufficient to the task...while falling very short of the mark.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I linked to the entire article, so your claim is empty and rude.


He said it was not an affliction, so why are you getting worked up about what it's not? As for words being "offensive" I'd really rather not play games deciding "who" gets to "decide" what is offensive. I, for one, prefer not to take offense when none is intended.


In what world does mental illness tend towards delusional thinking? Delusional thinking is, well, delusional thinking. You seem to have a misguided notion of the meaning of mental illness.


I anticipated the question , "Have you met anyone with Asperger's?" and answered it in advance, so spare me the "Seriously?" lecture. That aside, I really don't care whether you have given up on me or not. I consider your responses to be overly sensitive and made with without any regard to what Checkmite was trying to say.

[sigh] You trimmed your list of things I'd bolded, leaving out some important words which altered the meaning to suit you. I don't know what you think you mean when you say you linked to the entire 'article' - I made myself clear, for anyone who isn't looking for a fight. I got very tired of your pointless remarks in that thread about haircuts, and I have no intention of engaging any further with someone who proudly proclaims that he doesn't care who he offends.

If you go back and read for comprehension, you would find that I spoke of a general understanding of mental illness. Suggesting that that understanding is mine is disingenuous but not particularly surprising.

You anticipated a question that was not going to arrive, and you answered it with the equivalent of "some of my best friends are black". I think that says a lot. I consider your responses to be made without any regard to what anyone is trying to say, except you, and what you are saying is that you will be as rude as you please. For that reason, and because prior experience has shown how futile it is to discuss anything with you, I'm popping you on ignore now, luvvy.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi jiggeryqua,
If you do not have me on ignore, I would with your permission like to take this conversation further. I have explained in a response to Dave Rogers that I meant no offence to anyone nor to lecture anyone. And yes, I do wish to understand this issue and request your and any other AS sufferers assistance. As Dave says, perhaps I should try and get to know AS sufferers.

Figuring you'd continue to demand 'proof' rather than take steps to inform yourself, I read this again....spectrum - do you understand the term? .

Yes, I do understand the term spectrum and that there are by analogy many applications for this term.
ie Electromagnetic spectrum, spectrum of colour and of course Autistic spectrum disorders. For example the spectrum of colour is a subset of the electromagnetic continuum as is the microwave spectrum.

Some people are way over to the 'ultraviolet' end - profoundly autistic. Perhaps you're infra-red - not at all autistic. But you're still on the spectrum. The point of the phrase is to try and chip away at the barriers 'normal' people tend to raise between themselves and, for example. 'the disabled' or 'the autistic'.

I understand that I and everyone else is in the continuum of human psychology, but not all within the spectrum of ASD. I have never been diagnosed nor suffer from any of the symptoms. I am 58 years old, so I may well be heading for senile dementia, but that is another spectrum of the continuum of human psychology I would imagine.

The autism spectrum, also called autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or autism spectrum conditions (ASC), with the word autistic sometimes replacing autism, is a spectrum of psychological conditions characterized by widespread abnormalities of social interactions and communication, as well as severely restricted interests and highly repetitive behavior.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_spectrum

Spectrum and continuum are related concepts in psychiatry. Some use them interchangeably while some argue the fine points of difference. The term continuum suggests a simple straight line with no significant discontinuities, while the term spectrum suggests that although there is a common denominator, a particular set of individuals may present with a particular pattern of symptoms (a syndrome or subtype), reminiscent of the visible spectrum of distinct colors after refraction of light by a prism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_disorder

Perhaps there is confusion between spectrum and continuum.

I understand that your choice of terms is to express your desire to chip away at the barriers put in place by so called "normal" people.

ETA: in response to your edit, it seems your problem is that you do not want to be considered as having psychological conditions (you do) or 'abnormalities'. It is, I imagine, reassuring to be able to believe yourself to be 'normal'. Alas, there's no such thing. Please provide evidence for your claim that there is.

With regard to these comments, I have not stated that I consider myself normal and I have even stated that mankind is imperfect, and that there is no real definition of normal. So I consider this to be a strawman.

So what evidence do I need to supply for a claim I never made?

EATA: your first two links are 'not found' and the last one brings up the recent threads page of this forum

The link I posted was from Wiki's defintion of Autism Spectrum Disorder. I apologise if the link did not work. (see above wiki links).

On the other hand, you made a claim 'We all exist somewhere on the autistic spectrum' for which I requested evidence. You dismissed that request and told me to do my own research. Well, I have tried to find some qualified reference to that statement and found none. So I will just accept that there is none and that it was, as you say a mantra at a company you once worked for.

If you do not wish to have this discussion, then by all means refrain.
Just be kind enough to state that you do not wish to have this discussion and I will not pursue any further dialogue.

Kind regards
Skwinty.

 

[Almo]

I share skeptigirl's scepticism.
I do think the teacher made a silly mistake in these politically correct times.
Telling a disruptive kid the truth- that he is disruptive- is a serious no-no.
Letting a bunch of kids too young to vote do so is practically revolutionary.

They'll be hiding behind trees with muskets next.

Kids are the LAST people who should be allowed to vote on what happens to other kids. Well, maybe second-last before pedophiles.

 

[Uncayimmy]

[sigh] You trimmed your list of things I'd bolded, leaving out some important words which altered the meaning to suit you. I don't know what you think you mean when you say you linked to the entire 'article' - I made myself clear, for anyone who isn't looking for a fight. I got very tired of your pointless remarks in that thread about haircuts, and I have no intention of engaging any further with someone who proudly proclaims that he doesn't care who he offends.

If you go back and read for comprehension, you would find that I spoke of a general understanding of mental illness. Suggesting that that understanding is mine is disingenuous but not particularly surprising.

You anticipated a question that was not going to arrive, and you answered it with the equivalent of "some of my best friends are black". I think that says a lot. I consider your responses to be made without any regard to what anyone is trying to say, except you, and what you are saying is that you will be as rude as you please. For that reason, and because prior experience has shown how futile it is to discuss anything with you, I'm popping you on ignore now, luvvy.

You can stomp your feet and plug your ears if you want. I'll reply nonetheless.

Let's recap what happened here. You accused Checkmite of being rude and ignorant without any indication as to what he wrote or why it was rude or ignorant. When called on it, you specified the what but not the why. In fact, you stated categorically if that if didn't see it any of the things you noted, there was no helping him. Essentially, it was, "I'm right, and you're wrong. So there!"

I addressed each of your points. I referred to the Autism Society website for all of my quotes, yet you accused of me being dishonest in my quotes. The rules here do not allow us to quote entire pages, so it's up to the reader to read the quotes in context. If there's a difference in interpretation (it's not computer code or math equations, so that's likely to be the case), the proper thing to do is explain why you see it differently rather than simply accuse somebody of dishonesty.

You barely made any effort to address my points and instead chose to make unsupportable statements like saying the mental illness means delusional thinking. I pointed out that I have had personal experience with those diagnosed with AS, including someone who gives lectures on behalf of his local AS group. I did this to establish that I'm not just pulling random quotes off the Internet, but you accuse me of playing the "some of my best friends are black" game. You incorrectly claimed that nobody would be interested if I knew anyone with AS. You are wrong because other members in this thread have asked about personal experience.

You claim a lack of empathy on my part when in fact I have repeatedly explained why I don't have any problems with Checkmite wrote and double-checked my impression based on the words the Autism Society uses. Had the Autism Society used different language or provided different information, I would have seen it and understood. What better place to look than there, especially when the person offended is not explaining why. By contrast you have made no effort whatsoever to understand what anyone else is trying to say or even explain your accusations of rudeness and ignorance.

You also claimed that I said I was okay with being rude. What I said was that I try not to take offense when none was intended. The easiest thing in the world to do is choose to be offended when none was intended and then shut your eyes, cover your ears, and walk away rather than discussing how people might have different perspectives. Personally, I think the world would be a lot better place if people made more effort not to be offended by mere words and instead chose to understand what's in the hearts and minds of the person uttering those words.

So, really, I'm fine with you putting me on ignore. It would seem that communication, social interaction and empathy aren't your strong suit, which makes productive conversation difficult at best.

 

[Checkmite]

Affliction: A cause of pain, distress or suffering. Not relevant to AS, offensive to me. I am offended, you could apologise, but you look for things not to apologise for rather than recognise that I am offended. I understand some people are getting tired of being told they shouldn't be offensive to other people - you can't have a go at blacks, at women, at mexicans, at cripples, when will it end? Now it's the autists fcs.

Asperger's is not a disabling affliction.

Not sure where the problem is.

Thank you for defining syndrome. I'll pretend that wasn't deliberately offensive and that you really thought the definition was in dispute.

This, plus

There are times when I am not articulate, not even by the basic and uncommon definition you chose.

...this, plus...

For the record, I do not 'self-identify', I was diagnosed by someone who knows considerably more about AS than you do. Nice try at a wee slur there, though. Might as well pile 'em in if you plan on standing your ground on the whole 'enough PC! there has to be some group of people I can be rude about' thing.

...this...you know, as much as you claim I'm somehow struggling to find things "I don't have to apologize for", it seems to me more like a case of you finding every excuse you possibly can to be offended. Defining "syndrome" was obviously a means to making point on my part, and my use of "self-identify" obviously refers to you identifying yourself as an Asperger's patient in this thread, and depicting your personal experience as something I should've been sensitive to is unreasonable because until I read this thread a couple of minutes ago I was completely unaware of it.

I don't care for your questions, they don't advance this thread or the matter of your offensive remarks that you refuse to apologise for. I believe my age is in my profile, is it not? It may not be. In what way did you imagine an aspergian wouldn't be able to do this? Oh silly me, that's right, you know little and understand less...

Then I suggest you give up on me and move on. In my opinion, you are clearly much too close and entirely too sensitive to the subject matter to be able to participate without somebody pissing you off for using the wrong synonyms.

I have the same problem with threads about sexual abuse. I try now and then, but there's been points in specific threads where I've acknowledged that my lack of objectivity was making it impossible for me to positively contribute to the discussion at hand and excused myself from the thread as a result.

The point of my first post was: the teacher was ignorant of the fact that the student had Asperger's, and doesn't deserve to be dogpiled on as if she were being deliberately insensitive to the kid's needs, whatever they were. Now you (et al) are here, declaring me to be ignorant of all your problems and issues, and thus are dogpiling on me. You've completely missed the point and are so caught up in justifying your taking "offense" at what I've said that you've taken the discussion off the rails and clear into the next county. So do not chastise me for making comments that aren't "advancing" the thread.

And funnily enough, that wasn't what I sought an apology for. In case you've remarkably missed it again, it was for your ignorant patronising generalisations. Something on the form of "I'm sorry, I spoke from a position of ignorance, no offence was intended". It's not difficult.

I've already said there was no offense intended, and I've already welcomed any attempt to properly inform me (but not whilst having my head caved in). As for an apology, it would be hollow and un-genuine, because I believe it is unwarranted. Still want it?

Swear all you like, though I would have thought an oath had little place in here - even less than your strawman. I have not demanded an apology - what kind of uppity aspergian would I be if I demanded to be treated like a human being?

This is the part of your post where you make it clear that further rational discussion with you will be impossible.