Hi Clare,

You said “On the other hand, the same individuals do seem to have mostly managed to reply to their other critics without resorting to slander (accusing Michelle of statements she did not make) or crossing professional boundaries to a grotesque degree (e.g. claiming that Michelle "can't" be autistic, or must have a "personality disorder").”

Most journal editors won’t accept really malicious writings, even so, some of the Lovaas and Gresham correspondence was getting a little feisty by the end. But, I agree with what you write here. There is no excuse for it, and I will not waste my time defending those authors comments.

You said “And this is not a question of anonymous writers of hate-mail - this is about well-known professionals (Mulick, Green et. al.) and allegedly "science-based" professional organizations (ASAT) making a public response to science-based criticism.”

At least one professor made a personal attack upon Maurice. You can read about it in the book she edited “Making a Difference”. But all the same, I will not support or justify non scientific attack, whether it occurs from Mulick, ASAT, AUTCOM, or anyone else.

You said “What explains their ability to maintain some sort of professional boundaries when responding to non-autistic critics, yet completely abandon them here?”

They don’t always. And besides, there is no excuse, no matter who does the talking. Even so I think I see your point.

You said “Given how much of the attacks on Michelle have centred round her autism - hysterical claims that she's "not really autistic", not autistic "like their children", is only falsely claiming to be autistic, etc. - I have to say I find it implausible that Michelle's autism is irrelevant here.To use your terminology, it does appear that the fact that criticisms are being voiced by an autistic person makes them especially aversive to some professionals in the field.”

Looking at this again, I suppose that this is accurate. Again, there is no excuse.