Defamation of the head of an aspie group to four members

Post Reply New Topic

This is why most of us here favor in-person support groups that are open not only to those who are professionally diagnosed but also those who are self-diagnosed rather than excluding people.

One does have to be careful about trusting psychologists because of the continuing lack of understanding of how the Autism Spectrum presents in adults.

I think many psychologists got into the field because of some sort of trauma they or somebody they knew endured. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. I don't think this is more specific to female psych students.


The above exactly describes the GRASP support groups I attended from 2013-2015. I can't speak to how they are today.


Upon further investigation, while I still do not think this is controlling their group via malicious gossip there is evidence of a possible agenda.

I have not seen any other description of Aspergers mentioning this.

This does make me wonder if the GRASP leadership is fitting their diagnosis to an agenda that most diagnosed aspies are not really Aspies.

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.  A claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed -- a third party, perhaps.

13 Questions for ConcernedAspie82 to answer:

1. Which statements in the article are false?

2. What makes those statements in the article false?

3. Who are the people making the alleged defamatory statements?

4. Do the people making the statements have the necessary expertise to make those statements?

5. Who are the allegedly defamed persons?

6. How were their reputations harmed?

7. What reputations did they have before the article was published?

8. To whom are the alleged defamatory statements being made?

9. Do the people that the statements were made to have the ability to cause harm to the reputations of the allegedly defamed persons?

10. Who is making the complaint?

11. What is the relationship of the complainant to the authors of the article, the people the article was about, and the people being addressed?

12. Does the complainant have the necessary expertise to effectively refute the statements made by the authors of the article?

13. Does the complainant intend to pursue their complaint through the court system?

Please answer these questions truthfully and to the best of your ability, remembering that "I do not know" is a perfectly valid answer to any of the questions posed above.

Thank you.

Wow, that's a leap. I assumed the authors were consulting for this group or possibly they DID interview the people.

You never answered my questions as to whether you actually know the people involved. You are coming across as hysterical and also something of a troll.

Frankly, I refuse to discuss this matter any further with you. It's a battle of wits, and I don't feel it is right to fight an unarmed man.

By whom were they allegedly abused?  Did they report the alleged abuse to the authorities?  Were their alleged abusers ever arrested, accused, tried, convicted, sentenced, and/or incarcerated?  Do you have any valid reference for your claim, or have you done nothing other than read it "somewhere on the Internet"?

@Bea

Yes I did know the people in question. I can even give you contacts of former head members who themselves were removed by Kate and can verify everything I said: the vindictiveness, the agenda, the fact that they were kicked out and were not even given interviews over weeks for a re-diagnosis.

The question is: are you unbiased to examine them or are you dismissing out of hand?

Everything you said where?  Certainly not in this thread, unless you are also ConcernedAspie82.The question is: have you read this website's rules against sockpuppetry?

[quote="dsvoboda"]@Bea

I'm curious to know whether these people were given extended sessions. It seems that they were given a cursory overview. As I understand, you have to have weeks of evaluation with outside experts before getting a new diagnosis.

I'm not interacting with you.