LIVELINE Thread - (05/10/11 to 14/02/2012)

Lady Chatterton

vicwatson wrote: »

Feck sake your wan " I've three normal children, and this one...." what a cnut. Doesn't deserve children. she hates the poor bastardin child. what a witch.

Not the goddamn child's fault they have a disability.

What a bitch

To be fair to the woman, she was merely trying to say that she has three typically developing children and one child who has special needs. It is clear from all the activities she does with that child that she loves the child very much.

clappyhappy

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Maybe there might be some "balance" restored if Tony Humphreys had the balls to appear on Liveline and back up his dubious claims.

He mightn't be able for the questions from the "smart presenter" Joe's own words of praise for himself!!

Harry Angstrom

Jaysoose wrote: »

Would you go on to get shouted at by joe and the women on now? i sure as flip wouldnt.

Well, if he's given the opportunity to write an article like that from the comfort of his ivory tower, then he should come on Liveline to argue his point.

There's no point in you arguing about there being a lack of balance if the instigator of the newspaper piece refuses to appear on the programme.

Jaysoose

What?

syklops

Is Dr Humphreys theory, not simply a theory?

Also, on the theory that autism is more prevalent among people with a talent for mathematics, is it possible, that people with a talent for mathematics tend to be better educated and therefore are able to identify it in their kids better than other people?

Just a thought.

And Dr Humphreys is right not to come on. It is not the right place for a balanced theory on Autism.

suzie987

The fact that he won't come on is enough in itself.

Skid

Mr. Humphreys is a weasel if he won't engage in debate over his disgraceful article.

Liveline might not be the place for it, but he should answer his critics.

Jaysoose

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Well, if he's given the opportunity to write an article like that from the comfort of his ivory tower, then he should come on Liveline to argue his point.

There's no point in you arguing about there being a lack of balance if the instigator of the newspaper piece refuses to appear on the programme.

You do know im not Dr Humphries right? all we have here is people on one side..its not a debate whats wrong in saying that..dont be getting on my case for pointing out the obvious.

Big Daddy Cool

well i think today proved that joe is on here somewhere, that show just sucked the life out of this thread.

SEPT 23 1989

syklops

suzie987 wrote: »

The fact that he won't come on is enough in itself.

Would you want to defend yourself to joe and two borderline hysterical mothers?

SeaFields

A quick search in google scholar shows countless papers written on the subject. The most recent series having been written by Baron-Cohen et al.

It's not just the theory of Tony Humphries.

patwicklow

Maybe they can pick up on this and do a show about the banks refusing to take cash

Bank refused to accept cash for a mortgage payment
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541296

Skid

Big Daddy Cool wrote: »

well i think today proved that joe is on here somewhere, that show just sucked the life out of this thread.

That has never been in doubt.

He has been reading this thread for ages.

pc7

Joe - did you pay in

Joe feck off all the money you charge for your waffle!

Lady Chatterton

syklops wrote: »

Is Dr Humphreys theory, not simply a theory?

Yes, it is his theory but I feel it is completely irresponsible for a Clinical Psychologist to attribute autism to "refrigerator moms" when it can be scientifically proven that some children with autism have chromosomal/genetic abnormalities.

vicwatson

MrsD007 wrote: »

To be fair to the woman, she was merely trying to say that she has three typically developing children and one child who has special needs. It is clear from all the activities she does with that child that she loves the child very much.

She sounded extremely resentful to me. That the less fortunate child gets all this attention and her three "normal" (her words not mine) don't get the same. Its because they don't have the same needs that's why. That aul wan sounded like she hates the poor child because three "normal"ones don't get a look in. What a cnut.

Big Daddy Cool

syklops wrote: »

Would you want to defend yourself to joe and two borderline hysterical mothers?

exactly, this show is not the show for defending yourself, especially with joe in the hotseat

europa11

Searched for this...sums up todays show for me (from the TV show Frasier)

Frasier (responding to a caller): Roger, at Cornell University they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the Tunneling Electron Microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom, the infinitesimally minute building blocks of our universe. Roger, if I were using that microscope right now, I still wouldn't be able to locate my interest in your problem.

syklops

Also, I would be wanting to get the Examiner on the phone aswell.

A scientist publishing research on a subject is one thing. The Examiner summing it up in 100 words could construe anything it wants, and maybe only confuse the issue.

Harry Angstrom

syklops wrote: »

Would you want to defend yourself to joe and two borderline hysterical mothers?

I wouldn't really blame them for being hysterical. Humphreys is effectively saying that the reason their children are autistic is because they aren't loved enough by their parents.

syklops

europa11 wrote: »

Searched for this...sums up todays show for me (from the TV show Frasier)

Frasier (responding to a caller): Roger, at Cornell University they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the Tunneling Electron Microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom, the infinitesimally minute building blocks of our universe. Roger, if I were using that microscope right now, I still wouldn't be able to locate my interest in your problem.

This sums up yesterdays show for me.

Lady Chatterton

vicwatson wrote: »

She sounded extremely resentful to me. That the less fortunate child gets all this attention and her three "normal" (her words not mine) don't get the same. Its because they don't have the same needs that's why. That aul wan sounded like she hates the poor child because three "normal"ones don't get a look in. What a cnut.

You have it wrong my friend, she is very angry with Tom Humphreys not her child with autism. He is saying that children with autism have it due to a lack of love and attention from their parents, she is merely pointing out that she spends 80% of her time with her daughter with special needs.

suzie987

syklops wrote: »

Would you want to defend yourself to joe and two borderline hysterical mothers?

To be honest I would. The reason is because I am sure he has a significant amount of research and work behind what he wrote. But by not coming on and explaining this to the people who it affects most is leading to him being perceived even more so as 'mad, cold scientist'.

suzie987

syklops wrote: »

Also, I would be wanting to get the Examiner on the phone aswell.

A scientist publishing research on a subject is one thing. The Examiner summing it up in 100 words could construe anything it wants, and maybe only confuse the issue.

Definitely agree with you here

pc7

Have to say felt the last caller was a bit of a spoofer with the "lady in the supermarket asked me was I happy now I'd caused the autism". Sounded a bit far fetched or that she had a history with said woman.

syklops

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I wouldn't really blame them for being hysterical. Humphreys is effectively saying that the reason their children are autistic is because they aren't loved enough by their parents.

Again I would like to point out this comes by way of a ~100 word article in the Examiner so the conclusion may well be out of context.

Even then, its one scientist who has put out a theory. If the 2 women know they give their children enough love then what are they getting hysterical for? One has four kids, one of them autism. Surely if she was a cold mother than all four would be affected?

Harry Angstrom

syklops wrote: »

Again I would like to point out this comes by way of a ~100 word article in the Examiner so the conclusion may well be out of context.

Even then, its one scientist who has put out a theory. If the 2 women know they give their children enough love then what are they getting hysterical for? One has four kids, one of them autism. Surely if she was a cold mother than all four would be affected?

Well it sounds a bit trite to just dismiss them as "borderline hysterical".
I have lots of theories, usually after I've had a few pints, but I don't get the opportunity to have them printed in a national newspaper. If a scientist is afforded the oppotunity to have his theories published in a newspaper, then he should have the courage of his convictions to back them up when his theories are challenged by people at the coalface of the problem.

Lady Chatterton

SeaFields wrote: »

A quick search in google scholar shows countless papers written on the subject. The most recent series having been written by Baron-Cohen et al. It's not just the theory of Tony Humphries.

Have you a link to support that Simon Baron-Cohen remark? I'm familar with his work and he has never attributed autism to a lack of love and attention from parents.

suzie987

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Well it sounds a bit trite to just dismiss them as "borderline hysterical".
I have lots of theories, usually after I've had a few pints, but I don't get the opportunity to have them printed in a national newspaper. If a scientist is afforded the oppotunity to have his theories published in a newspaper, then he should have the courage of his convictions to back them up when his theories are challenged by people at the coalface of the problem.

You have said exactly what I was trying to say but much more eloquently!

If it was my theory, I would first have committed a significant amount of time researching the topic, secondly beleive 100% in my theory before printing in a national newspaper and thirdly be willing to justify my researched theory.

But - skylops makes a great point - how do we know that he did not have a scientific paper written on the topic, yet the paper choose to edit Humphries to sensationalize it? This is done so often

All in all, I don't think he comes out well from it