So, if you were responding to something that I wrote, where would you leave the comment? Would you leave a comment on the post where I wrote it? Or would you pick another post on a related subject and leave it there? Or perhaps you should start reading all of the posts from that point forward and choose one that says something kinda like what you want to say.
It might just be me, but I think that online etiquette strongly suggests that you leave your comments on the post where the issues was raised.
Confused yet? Go read one of the latest posts on Countering... (look flowers!).
Apparently Minority wasn't allowed to comment on the post that contained the offending text. According to the Ms Wombles, that was an "interesting choice", an attempt "bury it where no one will likely see it", and wasn't an "attempt at honest communication".
I just had an exchange with two people on an older post from last year. Should I say that the commenters were attempting to "bury" their comments where only I can see them? Should I be hostile to them because they disagreed with with I said? Or maybe I should write a big long rant about how they are unfortunate people who have been "misled by the atrocious misinformation".
Of course the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. These people were simply expressing their views about what I wrote in the place that I wrote it. And there is absolutely no need to treat other people badly simply because they don't happen to agree with me. Nor is there a need to imply that they are "wrong" and I am "right" or that they have "misinformation" while I have some sort of monopoly on the correct information.
In fact, I actually welcome comments from people who don't agree with me. I find that I can sometimes learn more from talking to people who disagree with me than with people who agree with me.
If I had to guess at Ms Wombles's intentions in writing what she did, I would say that she was attempting to intimidate Minority by pulling out a comment from an older thread and placing it front and center on her blog. I'm guessing that she is trying an old teaching trick - public shame.
So Kim, here is your little bit of shame in return.
Minority called you on your statement - in the appropriate place - and you responded with public ridicule because you didn't care for what they said. It really isn't nice to try to bully people into being quiet. Don't you think you should apologize for being such a meanie?
On a slightly more serious note, one of the comments on the shameful piece suggested that the recent attacks on the Ms Wombles have just been personal name-calling attacks that don't address the underlying issues. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree.
(Well, I guess I can't disagree with the name-calling part since I did do a little bit of that - lets just call it "venting" instead, shall we?)
What I disagree with is that my quarrel with Ms Wombles isn't about the issues. This debate is certainly about an issue and the issue is character. The autism world is chalk full of people like Ms Wombles who spend their time attacking and demeaning anyone who dares disagree with them and I for one have had enough of them.
(Although, to be honest, there are far worse people out there than Ms Wombles. One of them actually challenged me to a "duel" because of something that I wrote here. Unfortunately, I didn't have a sword and they lived in France, so I had to decline.)
But I digress. As I was saying, the issue is character. The issue is whether it is acceptable to stand on the sidelines when one member of the community tries to bully another. As Ms Wombles so nicely put it, the issue is accountability after all.
I think it is long past time that the autism community holds its members accountable for their actions.
P.S. Kim, fourteen blogs, really? Where do you find the time?