Super Suzy Report post Posted February 1, 2009 If the organisation was a company then it would be more understandable.As it is it is a charity that is being attacked.In the long term one implication is that companies will be more reluctant to support chrities because it will not be worth the bad pr if things go wrong.In the current financial climate charities need all the support they can get. Karen. Well the NAS had some very graphic images that were used in their recent advertising campaign and none of the scruffy radicals complained about that. As for a conflict of interest declaration, my husband has a professional interest in the campaign through his work supervising students with Aspergers at the University. It was his prompting that led me here (he's far too in-the-closet to post publicly.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 1, 2009 why do boys always get so snarly when you make it clear you won't oblige? me and me chiati off to sisters tonight. left my password with Him so he can come and snarl back at you. He's a professor, don't you know? At a very posh University. And I love him xXx. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted February 1, 2009 Hi Suzy, If your other half wants to join the debate he's very welcome but can he register separately please? Thanks K Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted February 1, 2009 why do boys always get so snarly when you make it clear you won't oblige? me and me chiati off to sisters tonight. left my password with Him so he can come and snarl back at you. He's a professor, don't you know? At a very posh University. And I love him xXx. Hi suzy Sadly, I'm not a professa nor nuffink, and a bear of very little brain too... so i'm a bit confused by the above. Do you mean that your professa is getting snarly because you won't be representing him tonight, or do you feel some other boy is being snarly? And what, if the latter, are you not obliging? i'd be obliged if you'd elucedeight alucid tell. Thanks for clearing up the professional interest side of things in your other posts, but I'm unsure about the 'scruffy radicals' reference> has someone here made a comment about 'scruffy radicals'? Enjoy your chianti - Bottoms up L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 1, 2009 I only do bottoms up when He's been a very good boy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted February 1, 2009 I only do bottoms up when He's been a very good boy. Ah... in that case, down the hatch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucas Report post Posted February 2, 2009 The only problem I've had with the NAS Think Differently/I Exist adverts has been the lack of context given. It's no good saying support and understanding can make all the difference without suggesting an example. For me, when I have a period of hyper-sensitivity a town or city enviroment can be a problem. But in the countryside or car the experience is wonderful. I'm gonna write them an e-mail pointing out the lack of such an example in the adverts because they give the impression that each issue they talk about is caused by Autism in isolation to what's going on around a person. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 2, 2009 The only problem I've had with the NAS Think Differently/I Exist adverts has been the lack of context given. It's no good saying support and understanding can make all the difference without suggesting an example. The NAS used quite graphic images as well. They got away with it because they are totally pro autistic people. Action For Children are just using autism, in the same way as they used MS. Just incidental to their fundraising. The message is: give us money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted February 2, 2009 The NAS used quite graphic images as well. They got away with it because they are totally pro autistic people. No. The difference is that the NAS used non-autistic actors for their images and none were based on an individual. They came out of focus groups with autistic individuals but are the suggestions of a collective/shared experience (whilst still accepting individual difference). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 2, 2009 No. The difference is that the NAS used non-autistic actors for their images and none were based on an individual. They came out of focus groups with autistic individuals but are the suggestions of a collective/shared experience (whilst still accepting individual difference). Oh why Oh why didn't Action For Children do the same thing? Now, the old man himself Simon Baron-Cohen has said the ads are wrong: http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/2009/0...hen-speaks.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted February 2, 2009 Now, the old man himself Simon Baron-Cohen has said the ads are wrong: http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/2009/0...hen-speaks.html Woahh, careful. SBC hasn't 'added his voice' or 'publicly demonstrated [his] objections to this unethical, misrepresentative and damaging ad'. In fact he doesn't even mention the charity. This appears to be an item of personal correspondence that is now in the public domain. We know nothing about the context and as such should be very wary about the assumptions drawn. All he has actually said in this email is that such imagery can be unhelpful - nothing more and nothing stronger (and certainly not that the ads are 'wrong') and it would be wrong to extrapolate from this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) I think Simon, after his recent excursion into the limelight, is being remarkably frank. I'm surprised, and delighted that he's given permission for this letter to be used. No, I've no doubt he means what he seems to mean. After all he was writing to the woman that runs the campaign. Do you think he's foolish enough to do so after what just happened with the pre natal screening thing? Edited February 3, 2009 by Kathryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pookie170 Report post Posted February 2, 2009 Ahem.... Getting back on track, I had a quiet chuckle after a phone conversation with my MIL (kinda thing!) last night- She sed: 'Have you seen that advert about autism recently?' 'Yes' sed I, ' I have indeed, and I can't say I'm a big fan.....Why?' 'Oh'......quoth she,' It's just that I thought it might be useful....you know...' I sagged, (inaudibly) at this point, cuz I knew what she meant...... 'I just thought that maybe it'd be good to bear in mind?' 'You mean as a school choice?' I asked. 'Yes, you should have a look at their website and find out about it!' she said..... Well, I politely declined with a brief explanation, and in one way, I was warmed by the fact that she had thought of my lad, or the spirit behind her suggestion, rather. But I think it's a good example of the well-meaning misinformation incurred by the advert...... (IYKWIM!!) I did tell the MIL that I appreciated her passing it on though, cuz she meant well and she loves my lads, bless her! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) we should all be here talking about what a wonderful advert Action For Children had made. we would be if one of the execs had talked to the NAS (God bless 'em) or joined here and hung out a little. don't they know? don't pick fights with mummies with little monsters. we're trouble. Edited February 3, 2009 by Kathryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) I've edited or removed several recent posts all of which which don't contribute anything to the topic of the thread, and some of which are just offensive. Suzy, swearing at people isn't acceptable on the forum. Please keep the discussion on topic. Kathryn Edited February 3, 2009 by Kathryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Offensive and off topic content deleted by moderator. Edited February 3, 2009 by Kathryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted February 3, 2009 Regretfully, I am closing this thread as one poster appears determined to disrupt it. Thanks to all who have contributed to an interesting discussion. Kathryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
