In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 12, 3:02=A0am, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:26=A0am, Bruce wrote:





On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Andrew H

wrote:
Now that Oyster Pay as you Go is valid on National Rail (although it
may already have been valid on Thameslink? but was all a bit vague and
confusing), I used the Thameslink route for the first time this year,
and realised that once Blackfriars south bank entrance is open, it
will be a handy link straight to the south bank and the popular thames
walkway/London Eye/Tate Modern/Millennium Bridge etc. At off peak
times a more comfortable journey than using the Northern line from
Euston.

It will be a very long walk from Thameslink's Blackfriars southern
exit to the London Eye. =A0I doubt that even 1% of tourists would
consider it.

As so often on uk.railway, posters only consider their own personal
situation and seem to lack any ability to give a moment's thought to
what most normal people would want, and do.

The vast majority of tourists would find staying in the thoroughly
seedy Kings Cross area quite repugnant. =A0If anything is going to put
them off returning to London, that's it. =A0

The situation may well improve over the next few years as the new
Kings Cross and St Pancras International is completed (the hotel is
still under construction) and the area is cleaned up. =A0But for the
time being, it is a particularly unpleasant place to be.

So for some years hence, the vast majority of people who come to
London will still find accommodation among the thousands of hotels
that are to be found to the west, and of which trainspotters seem
completely unaware. =A0Perhaps I should not be so surprised that
trainspotters are so out of touch with normal people - it's the nature
of the hobby, I suppose, and its close connection with autism.

Some might wonder if it's not you who's borderline autistic...

Decent people do not mock the afflicted. In point of fact asperger's
is a gift as much as it=92s an affliction. The ability to focus in a
very narrow to the exclusion of outside data can at times be very
useful.

Aspergers is not Autism, though they are in the same spectrum of mental
conditions.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Aug 12, 6:08*pm, Graeme wrote:

1506 wrote:
[snip]
Decent people do not mock the afflicted. *In point of fact asperger's
is a gift as much as it=92s an affliction. *The ability to focus in a
very narrow to the exclusion of outside data can at times be very
useful.

Aspergers is not Autism, though they are in the same spectrum of mental
conditions.

You haven't come across the recent debate about a proposed change in a
new edition some very influential American medical or mental health
text book - AIUI the notion is that Asperger's would no longer be
separately classified, instead it would just be at one end of the
autism spectrum.

Interesting debate ensues - one school of thought in the medico-mental
health world seem to consider this to be logical, honest and in line
with the evidence that it's all just a spectrum of the same thing,
whilst others - some campaigners and the like - were/are wary of
reclassification, the thinking being that the term Asperger's has
broadly been successfully de-stigmatised in the mind of society at
large (which in turn has encouraged people to seek help who otherwise
wouldn't have done so), and that 'abolishing' Asperger's and lumping
it all in with autism would be a backward step in this. At least,
that's my understanding of the debate.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 12, 6:08*pm, Graeme wrote:

1506 wrote:
[snip]
Decent people do not mock the afflicted. *In point of fact asperger's
is a gift as much as it=92s an affliction. *The ability to focus in a
very narrow to the exclusion of outside data can at times be very
useful.

Aspergers is not Autism, though they are in the same spectrum of mental
conditions.

You haven't come across the recent debate about a proposed change in a
new edition some very influential American medical or mental health
text book

Presumably DSM-5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...al_Disord ers

- AIUI the notion is that Asperger's would no longer be separately
classified, instead it would just be at one end of the autism spectrum.

It's been thought of that way for many years, so a change in exactly what
the Dewey decimal number or whatever for it is doesn't seem like a hugely
controversial change.

Interesting debate ensues - one school of thought in the medico-mental
health world seem to consider this to be logical, honest and in line
with the evidence that it's all just a spectrum of the same thing,
whilst others - some campaigners and the like - were/are wary of
reclassification, the thinking being that the term Asperger's has
broadly been successfully de-stigmatised in the mind of society at large
(which in turn has encouraged people to seek help who otherwise wouldn't
have done so), and that 'abolishing' Asperger's and lumping it all in
with autism would be a backward step in this. At least, that's my
understanding of the debate.

Until you put it like that! People in the US seem to have an amazing
talent to get phenomenally wound up about things.

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

On Aug 12, 8:34*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 12, 6:08*pm, Graeme wrote:
[snip]
Aspergers is not Autism, though they are in the same spectrum of mental
conditions.

You haven't come across the recent debate about a proposed change in a
new edition some very influential American medical or mental health
text book

Presumably DSM-5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...al_Disord ers

That's the one, yes. My google-fu was weak today.

It is apparently very influential in the realm of the mental health
profession, in the US obviously but also worldwide where the ideas
trickle (or wash) across.


- AIUI the notion is that Asperger's would no longer be separately
classified, instead it would just be at one end of the autism spectrum.

It's been thought of that way for many years, so a change in exactly what
the Dewey decimal number or whatever for it is doesn't seem like a hugely
controversial change.

Interesting debate ensues - one school of thought in the medico-mental
health world seem to consider this to be logical, honest and in line
with the evidence that it's all just a spectrum of the same thing,
whilst others - some campaigners and the like - were/are wary of
reclassification, the thinking being that the term Asperger's has
broadly been successfully de-stigmatised in the mind of society at large
(which in turn has encouraged people to seek help who otherwise wouldn't
have done so), and that 'abolishing' Asperger's and lumping it all in
with autism would be a backward step in this. At least, that's my
understanding of the debate.

Until you put it like that! People in the US seem to have an amazing
talent to get phenomenally wound up about things.

In message
Mizter T wrote:


On Aug 12, 6:08*pm, Graeme wrote:

1506 wrote:
[snip]
Decent people do not mock the afflicted. *In point of fact asperger's
is a gift as much as it=92s an affliction. *The ability to focus in a
very narrow to the exclusion of outside data can at times be very
useful.

Aspergers is not Autism, though they are in the same spectrum of mental
conditions.

You haven't come across the recent debate about a proposed change in a
new edition some very influential American medical or mental health
text book - AIUI the notion is that Asperger's would no longer be
separately classified, instead it would just be at one end of the
autism spectrum.

Yes I have, I've also had my ear bashed comprehensively by various interested
parties about why that shouldn't hasppen.


Interesting debate ensues - one school of thought in the medico-mental
health world seem to consider this to be logical, honest and in line
with the evidence that it's all just a spectrum of the same thing,
whilst others - some campaigners and the like - were/are wary of
reclassification, the thinking being that the term Asperger's has
broadly been successfully de-stigmatised in the mind of society at
large (which in turn has encouraged people to seek help who otherwise
wouldn't have done so), and that 'abolishing' Asperger's and lumping
it all in with autism would be a backward step in this. At least,
that's my understanding of the debate.

That's the meat of it.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/