Clarification on the purpose of these forums.

This forum for me is a place of community where I can participate in fun and sometimes deep discussions. Sometimes I offer support if I need to and in the past have sought support for myself and some members have been kind enough to help me during dark days. 

Above all else though it is a place of safety where i can comfortably be myself. 

Some posts though have really kind of stunned me. There has been, people not leaving the home for more than five years  and some like angst written posts Some of the things people are asking at times seems to may be outstrip what this forum can provide given that most of us has issues ourselves.

Bored and irritable said:

if I am obligated to respect a person's right to not be called a cohort (which in itself is absurd) then others have a duty to respect my word choice. 

For the sake of absolute clarity (as it appears I have inadvertently embroiled myself within a circumstance that seems to demand this level of granularity) [woe is me!].......I do not "obligate" anyone NOT to associate me with any "cohort" of their choosing....it is merely that I do not choose to associate myself within ANY cohort whatsoever.

Similarly, I do not feel "duty bound" to respect the word (or words) of others......but I always choose to do so, unless there is a sound reason not to do so.

I hope that can mark a respectful end to my involvement with this particular discourse.

I wish all, a good nights sleep.

That doesn't make any sense.  You are contradicting the very basis of your whole argument. Rights are not fluid. There based on duties and obligations, if I am obligated to respect a person's right to not be called a cohort (which in itself is absurd) then others have a duty to respect my word choice. 

Equally the verb usage of cohort is divide people into certain groups. You formed that group by extension when you choose to pick a side in the debate. As I said you have both jumped to a wild assumption, and it seems to be perfectly acceptable. Which is contrary to the very rules you have quoted. So, forgive me if I am a little confused by the forums purpose. 

Bored and irritable said:

You clearly do think you superior, as you agreed that the PURPOSE was EVIDENT - clearly I am not as intellectually gifted as you, because it isn't evident to me. 

The purpose was clear for me. If it isn't clear for you then you are free to disagree and discuss as you have done,

To say that I consider myself as superior is entirely your perspective here. I have never stated this and you assumed, making it a reflection of your perspective. Do not tell me how I think please.

Bored and irritable said:

So again I ask you why certain rules only apply to certain people? 

I never said this - it seems to be your mind going here. The rules apply to all as is their nature.

I'm afraid I have no further time to engage in debate tonight as I have other things to do, but I hope you find the answers for which you seek.

I disagree. 

You said "Spot on" You agreed the purpose was EVIDENT. No you haven't typed certain things but they were inferred. It's quite a simple question. You have clearly read up on the rules, and are clearly accustomed to quoting them. So again I ask you why certain rules only apply to certain people? 

As you highlighted "We encourage debate" which is what I have done. You clearly do think you superior, as you agreed that the PURPOSE was EVIDENT - clearly I am not as intellectually gifted as you, because it isn't evident to me. 

For example, the rules apparently don't apply to everybody. 

I did, out of respect, do as you suggested, and have nothing to add.

Bored and irritable said:

You may wish to look up the definition of cohort.

And you may wish to respect Numbers wished if they do not identify as a cohort.

It would be the civilised thing to do.

Besides, from the definition of the individual label:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cohort

companion, colleague

Number and I are different individuals and they have expressed a desire to NOT be my colleague or form a group so that pretty much negates the definition if you want to be specific about the term,

You may wish to look up the definition of cohort. 

Hi Roswell, 

What a wonderful, and productive reply. It's greatly appreciated. 

I agree with much of what you have put, and I am 'Bored and irritable' because I would like to be more active. I would like to contribute. Hence the purpose of the feed. To learn to be more productive in the forums. That however, requires understanding the views of others. Which is what I have tried to do. 

Bored and irritable said:

If I may.........what do you think of Rule No.5? As it seems to me that you have made an erroneous judgement.

They key wording there is: We encourage...

It is not mandated so allows us to speak pretty much as we wish short of insulting etc with is mandated as forbidden.

Bored and irritable said:

why these forums are for only certain people.

I have no recallection of saying this - can you back this up or are you imagining it?

Bored and irritable said:

Are you suggesting you're in a greater need? 

I have not claimed this. If you have seen my posting history you will see I prodominantly offer help and advice to those asking (plus some light hearted chat here and there to lighten the mood).

I apologise that you find fault with my word choice. 

I don't need the link, thank you. I have in front of me. 

If I may.........what do you think of Rule No.5? As it seems to me that you have made an erroneous judgement. I am a little confused as to your justification. You have quoted the rules whilst you are breaking them. 

You have clearly read something and, like your associate, jumped to a couple of conclusions, to which you are unable to substantiate your reasoning or justify why your opinion is more valuable than mine. This is the very purpose of this feed. 

So, please elaborate on why these forums are for only certain people. Are you suggesting you're in a greater need? 

Ah, spurned again. As you wish - the new category shall remain a distant dream.

That's it - I'm off to stop being so silly.

I'd simply like to remain as Number, if that's OK please.

Number said:

I do not share a "cohort"

Could we add a C to the LGBTIA.... group?

It could be a new form of autistic friend category - think of the confusion we could cause with it.

OK, a bit of an anarchic move but it could be fun.

BTW.....to the very best of my knowledge and experience, I do not share a "cohort" although I am delighted to have found a selection of VERY diverse entities, within this place, whom I like to consider "friends."

Bored and irritable said:

Would you care to expand on your position? You, along with your cohort seem to be happy to make assumptions.

Nope. Have a look at:

https://community.autism.org.uk/p/rules

Our Community is designed to be a safe and welcoming place for those that use and visit it for support and information about autism.  

It is their webite so no discussion is to be had - it just says for support and information which covers what I said previously.

Is that you don't think debate should be encouraged or you do think opinions should be respected? 

Would you care to expand on your position? You, along with your cohort seem to be happy to make assumptions. Surely debate should be had? The evidence examined, before your allowed to presume anything. 

Isn't that the respectful thing to do?