INTRODUCTION
I have various things to share with you, and some new pictures to post. I am going to start with…
BLOGGING HINTS: HOW TO REBLOG WITHOUT A REBLOG BUTTON
This section was prompted by a post put up by Tracy at Yarn and Pencil this morning titled “More WP problems“, and has developed from a comment I posted there. One of the problems she raised there was the ‘disappearing reblog button’ that others have commented on.
The process for reblogging when there is no reblog button is:
- Start a new post as though you were going to create something of your own.
- Link to the site on which you found the piece you intend to share and of course to the piece itself (use the actual title of the piece for this).
- Select a paragraph and/or an image from the original to serve as an ‘appetiser’ (making sure to differentiate the text from your own and/or to ensure that the image is clearly identified as the other person’s work)
- If you are using a whole post just to link to one piece turn the comments of on your post – you want to people to visit the original and post any comments they might have there. This last point leads me on to…
A QUICK GUIDE TO TURNING OFF COMMENTS
If your window when creating a post looks like mine, then on the right as you look is a panel of tabs as follows:
Open the ‘More Options’ tab, as indicated by the red arrow above, and you will see…
…Down near the bottom are two check boxes and you want to uncheck the top one of the two where it says “Allow Comments”. Instead of two ticks, shown above, you want it to look like:
OTHER POSTS FROM HERE AND THERE
I am going to open this section with a couple of links about neurodiversity. To set the scene, a post from Neurocosmopolitanism titled “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions“. As an ‘appetiser’ I offer you this section on the Neurodiversity Paradigm:
1.) Neurodiversity is a natural and valuable form of human diversity.
2.) The idea that there is one “normal” or “healthy” type of brain or mind, or one “right” style of neurocognitive functioning, is a culturally constructed fiction, no more valid (and no more conducive to a healthy society or to the overall well-being of humanity) than the idea that there is one “normal” or “right” ethnicity, gender, or culture.
3.) The social dynamics that manifest in regard to neurodiversity are similar to the social dynamics that manifest in regard to other forms of human diversity (e.g., diversity of ethnicity, gender, or culture). These dynamics include the dynamics of social power inequalities, and also the dynamics by which diversity, when embraced, acts as a source of creative potential.
This leads on to an article from Harvard Business Review titled “Neurodiversity as a Competitiuve Advantage“. I give you the opening two paragraphs:
Meet John. He’s a wizard at data analytics. His combination of mathematical ability and software development skill is highly unusual. His CV features two master’s degrees, both with honors. An obvious guy for a tech company to scoop up, right?
Until recently, no. Before John ran across a firm that had begun experimenting with alternative approaches to talent, he was unemployed for more than two years. Other companies he had talked with badly needed the skills he possessed. But he couldn’t make it through the hiring process.
My next offering comes from the Neurodivergent Rebel and is titled “The Problem with Autism“. This time I provide the closing words of the piece:
If the narrative around autism changed to one of true acceptance and kindness, would things be different? If we show people how to believe in themselves, will it make it easier for them to succeed?
The problem with autism isn’t autism. It’s society’s attitude that autism is wrong.
Then we come to a piece on to aspie or not to aspie titled “To Autism With Love“, from which I give you the conclusion:
In fact, my dear, dear friend, Autism, I love you.
And I am grateful for who you have made me. And that you are there for me when I need you.
Let’s start our journey again, and this time I promise, I’ll try my best to understand what you need from me. Take my hand and let’s tackle the world together.
But please do try and understand what I have to give. That I have limits.
And, dear kind, confusing, Autism, remember this: I love you.
No matter what. Always, forever and a day.
Sincerely,
An aspie.
This next link is for those of you who use social media. Libby, who tweets as @LibbyAutism, has expanded her social media profile by creating a facebook page called Liberty – living with autism. Please visit and like the page if you can.
Finally, to end this section, a reminder about the petition on 38 Degrees to save the Respite Unit at Morley House. This petiton, screenshotted below, is now on just over 3,000 signatures, and I urge you all to help us increase that number:
SOLUTION TO SATURDAY’S TEASER
Here is the problem I set you on Saturday:
Here is the answer, followed by a published solution:
This is Stephen Mellor’s highly admired solution:
PHOTOGRAPHS
Well done those of you who have made it to this point! We end, as usual, with some recent photographs:
aspiblog 
Relevant wiki: Truth-Tellers and Liars
Since every statement is false, let us convert them into true statements, and number each statement:
Ann: 1) One of us took the painting. 2) The painting was gone when I left.
Bob: 3) I arrived first, third, or fourth. 4) The painting was still here.
Chuck: 5) I arrived first, second, or fourth. 6) The painting was gone when I arrived.
Tom: 7) Whoever stole the painting arrived after me. 8) The painting was still here.
According to statement #7, Tom is not the thief. #8: Since the painting was there when Tom arrived, he could not have been the last to arrive. Tom must have gone there first, second, or third. #6: The painting was gone when Chuck was there, so he didn’t arrive first. #5: So Chuck got there second or fourth. #4 and #8: As two other members (Bob and Tom) arrived to see the painting, Chuck didn’t get there second, either. So Chuck arrived fourth. #3: This means Bob arrived first or third. #2: Since the painting was gone when Ann left, she didn’t arrive first. Otherwise, no member after her would have seen the painting. So Ann went there second or third and Chuck arrived fourth. But since two other members (Bob and Tom) saw the painting when they arrived, Ann didn’t go there second, either. So Ann arrived third. #3: Therefore, Bob arrived first, and Tom arrived second.
In summary, Bob arrived first. Tom got there next and the painting was still there, so Bob was not the thief, and neither was Tom. When Ann arrived, the painting was still there, but it was gone when she left. So Ann was the one who stole the painting. Chuck arrived last and discovered that the painting was gone.