1. A long term regular user
   
2. Good grasp of the english language, good spelling and grammar
   
3. Good grasp of AFF's aims
   
4. Agreement with our views (those who want to write an opposing view are welcome to submit single articles however)
   
5. It helps to provide sample writing, but not having samples will not be held against you
   

For those with an opposing view who wish to write an article please post it in the "AFF news" section where it will be unapproved by default and PM myself indicating you would like it published. I will review it using criteria such as how honest it is and the quality of the writing itself, and will publish it marking it as "the opposing viewpoint" with commentary at the end of your article.

The policy on opposing views is intended to allow discussion of opposing viewpoints without censorship and publication of any article in this category indicates that whatever your message is, it will likely be heavily criticised. If you post an article for publication in this category and it is not accepted, then it will still be posted for community review on the site by request unless it contains any content that is actually illegal to publish.

A note on copyright:
By publishing stuff here you grant us a license to republish it, where "us" means the owners of this site and the general community.
Any such reproduction will indicate the original author and if it is modified, such modifications will be indicated in any reproduction.
Should you disagree with these terms, do not submit anything. If you submit an article and later file any sort of takedown notice, it will be ignored and any attempt at legal action later will result in a countersuit for expenses and damages.
Should you submit someone else's work, I will personally cooperate with them if you attempt to take credit for their work and takedown notices from third parties will be honoured so far as the law requires them to be honoured.

No offence, but "The opposing veiwpoint" is a very poor choice of words. No one is going to write an article under that category.

It's like "The bad guys opinion".

There are shades of grey in this discussion as well. Someone may agree with some aspects of your ideology and some aspects of mainstream practice.

Reguardless, most 'opposing' people do belive they are doing the right thing, and they're not just going to line up on the 'bad guy' pedistel. Especially after what happened with the interview.

I think it's very important that other people with other points of veiws do come to this site. If you want them to listen to you, you have to listen to them.

This is something that AFF is criticised for; you just complain to yourselfes. If you want to have a meaningfull discussion, you've got to make people feel like they're not wasting their time from coming here.

Just call it an 'article' if someone's going to say something contriversial and have them warn you beforehand.

There are only so many autism dollars that the public can afford to donate each year.

In 2010 Aspeaks sucked up 54 million of them.
In 2010 "ASpeaks awarded $1.5 million to 69 organizations to meet the needs of individuals with autism."

Not much of a return from the $54 million donated.
At the same time good charities that pump all their money into the autistic community rather than into research establishments are being starved of funds and are stagnating and are unable to meet the demands of a growing autistic population.

So you are correct in saying it is getting increasingly difficult for an autistic person with complex needs to get the support they need to live a rewarding and fulfilling life.

However an individual with complex needs is more likely to win the state lottery than get the support they need from Aspeaks and if they are an adult then they have no chance because nearly all that $1.5 million that they give back to the community goes to children.

But don't lose heart, we ARE winning, that $1.5 million was more than previous years (2007-2010 total spend $2.9million) and as KenG said there are signs that they are changing their tune.

But I for one will not be listening to the propaganda spewed by their spin doctors.
I will wait for their 2011 accounts. They cannot lie.

(All figours used taken from Aspeaks 2010 accounts)

You need to consider your use of language and adapt depending on the circumstances. If you don't make them feel welcome or listened to in any way, they won't come, it's as simple as that.

If we don't listen to them, they won't listen to us. It's a two way street, bringing them to our platform exposes them to our ideology as well. If so called 'curbies' came here regurally to discuss these issues with us mabye we can persuade some of them to some extent.

Letting AS cover the front page with propoganda was a bad idea, but if we could talk to common "curbies" about these issues without them having loads of time to construct their statment, we could make leway by persuading the people themselves and catching them out on any spin they try to make. Publicly as opposed to internally.

What did you think this kind of activism was about?

I probably shouldn't have used autism speaks as an example because whenever they get brought the topic always changes completly. This is refering to AFF's choice of words.

Dialog is everything. I'm sorry, but that's the game we're playing here.

Anyway, we're just repeting ourselfes. That's my two cents on this topic.

I fully understand the importance of language and its use. My point is that this site does take positions on the issues. If someone is posting what we would call the opposing viewpoint, they would probably also call it the opposing viewpoint. It's an accepted media term, and I've never seen or heard anyone get offended by it.

Besides, people who hold what we might call opposing viewpoints usually don't find their way to AFF. Those who do usually come for the purpose of trolling. I'm just stating what I've observed in the past.

I don't have much time on my hands either, if I do find the time to try activism again, I would have to seriously consider whether it would be best spent preaching to the converted on a random corner of the internet that has no interest in engaging with anyone in the outside world.

e: Oh and of corse you get trolls here. That's because this site isn't appealing to sensible people with a different point of veiw.

I think you would be a good one.

Bravo!

Bro wasn't interested in having autism speaks as an enemy. He said so himself. As for why they are opposing views, well... we are not for prenatal-testing and ASpeaks is, among many, many other reasons we have for not wanting to "bridge the gulf" without a MAJOR change in direction from ASpeaks.

Major change in direction?

Hmm, expect the unexpected. I think the interview had a bigger impact than you think.

IS it true that you are a highly influential computer genius. My brother kept talking about an Alan that was a computer genius but didn't like him and I think it was you. He was really into it for a minute.

unusual comparison, but emphasizes your point very well

Refer to Ken G's post

I should also point out that Ken objects to anything that paints autism in he slightest negative light ("risk factors, "molecular pathophysiology".) Because he is talking about biomed research (mostly aimed towards a prenatal test, AFAIK), this kind of thing is semantic water under the burning bridge.

It is only until they refer to it as a disease, a defect, a problem, aberration, etc that I object.

Maybe it did, but could it be enough to sway some of ASpeaks bigger critics here? Doubtful. Will ASpeaks ever change it's direction away from prenatal testing? Who knows, but we are a long ways away from that.

You mean, we aren't appealing to your pov?

I keep trying to tell you, it would be expected that a curbie would not feel totally welcome here. This site takes a fundamentally anti-cure stance. Several of us may not be here if it were otherwise.

Think about it dude. Do you want all the curebies to just disappear? Good luck with that.

So, if you can't just make them vanish, what it is the next best, no, the even better thing to do?

Think about. It isn't rocket science - it is politics. An enemy is an enemy until they are a "friend."

Seriously guys, is it that hard to figure out?

Things don't work like that either. You have to go for the people that are on the fence. People aren't going to spontaneously start agreeing with you, just because you call them a friend.