Sleeping in restaurants

[Roman]

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=32601&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[MomOTwins]

Roman,

A lot of the folks on WrongPlanet brought up some good points. I'll try to walk through a few from the more-or-less NT end of the spectrum to see if I can make it a little more understandable:

1) It IS a health code violation (the restaurant could get ticketed, fined, etc.). Even if you are a quiet (non-drooling, non-snoring, non-sleep talking) kind of sleeper, it is not appropriate behavior in a restaurant. Even if you are in IHOP or Big Boy or Denny's or The Brown Jug (is that place still in business in Ann Arbor?), it is not (as my 10-year old son reminds me) good manners.

2) It is not your dorm/study hall/cafeteria at college - where a lot of this happens routinely. Why does it get a "free pass" on campus and not in a restaurant? Well, it is an issue of public space vs. college space. In a college-owned space, lots of things go on that are not typically allowed in "public" spaces. There is kind of an invisible wall that divides what is OK on campus and what is OK in the rest of the world, and snoozing in a restaurant is NOT on the campus side of the wall.

3) Think of the time you spend in a restaurant as time that you are "renting" the table for one specific job - eating a meal - as that is the purpose of a restaurant. They are in business to feed people, and that is all. They are not in business to house you for hours of studying time (despite the ads for Starbucks, you cannot spend all day there drinking one cup of coffee) or a quick nap. That is what your dorm, college library, college cafeteria are suitable for, as you see in your daily experiences in Ann Arbor.

4) Pulling an all-nighter is probably way more comfortable if you can have a change of scene every few hours, but try to keep it on-campus if you are feeling drowsy. Those of us who spent way too many hours staring at physiology text books in grad school know that you start to feel a little strange while doing that late-night reading if you don't have coffee, soda, snacks, or something else to keep you awake....but stock up on these things for your own space. If you feel the need to take a off-campus break or just go outside for fresh air, make it short, focus on getting back on track with your work, and then go back to digging through those lecture notes. If you need to sleep --- DO IT! But do it somewhere where you'll actually be able to sleep for a few hours.

Kim

[Keggy]

First off if you sleep you could miss desert :P

Hmm.. what if lots of people did that? I mean you could walk into the IHOP and the waitress could be asking you to lower your voice....... cause all the booths are filled (one person at each of course) with people asleep on their pancakes.

Personally, I think it would be funny to see everyone asleep at Starbucks. DOn't you love it when you go into a restaurant and find people sitting alone at a booth with a cup of coffee, and you and your friend or group can't get a seat together? I hope you aren't hogging a booth Roman... and I hope you aren't snoring.

[milivica]

I think this is one of those things, that while in your situation it isn't fair, it's a general thing not allowed due to all the ways it turned out negatively for restaurants in the past. Know what I mean?

I think sleeping is allowed on city buses, on a beach, that's also in public, but not around food...and I don't know why that's different from bus to restaurant.

You won't find logic or reason in this I don't think, it's just how it is. Honestly, if I had a restaurant, I wouldn't want to see folks sleeping in it, wouldn't really say anything good about the food - might look like you ate my food and died.

If you really feel strongly about doing your work at that place, put your elbows on the table hands on your head and have your head pointing straight down like your 'concentrating' or take a quick nap on the toilet. I used to do both all the time I was able when my kids were both still under 2 and I was massively sleep deprived. Give ya 1-5 minutes here and there.

[The Pogue]

Sleeping is a basic bodily function; something normally done in private.
Yes, people do sleep in public places, but with few exceptions (i.e., airplanes, hotel waiting room couches, the beach), it looks pretty darned creepy. If you're already struggling with social acceptance and fitting in, napping in restaurants (or even hanging out there for hours on end) will not help matters.

[Roman]

1) It IS a health code violation (the restaurant could get ticketed, fined, etc.).

Why is it a health code violation? The only possible thing I can think of is the fact that I am asleep indicates that I am sick so I would affect others. In this case, no-sleeping policy won't cure the situation becuase sick people will still go to the restaurant, they will just make an effort to stay awake; but this won't make them less sick hence it won't reduce the health risks for others.


2) It is not your dorm/study hall/cafeteria at college - where a lot of this happens routinely. Why does it get a "free pass" on campus and not in a restaurant? Well, it is an issue of public space vs. college space. In a college-owned space, lots of things go on that are not typically allowed in "public" spaces. There is kind of an invisible wall that divides what is OK on campus and what is OK in the rest of the world, and snoozing in a restaurant is NOT on the campus side of the wall.

Well this is just a statement of how things ARE, this doesn't answer any of the quesitons why.

3) Think of the time you spend in a restaurant as time that you are "renting" the table for one specific job - eating a meal - as that is the purpose of a restaurant. They are in business to feed people, and that is all. They are not in business to house you for hours of studying time (despite the ads for Starbucks, you cannot spend all day there drinking one cup of coffee) or a quick nap. That is what your dorm, college library, college cafeteria are suitable for, as you see in your daily experiences in Ann Arbor.

But for some reason it *IS* okay with them if I stay there for hours studying, the only thing that is not okay is if I am asleep.

By the way, if they didn't let me study indefinitely, I would understand. One reason might be to keep tables open for others. Or if there are a lot of empty tables, the other explanation is that this might be a way for them to encourage me to buy stuff since the more I buy the longer I can stay.

BUT ONCE AGAIN, SOMEHOW THE RESTAURANTS *DO* ALLOW ME TO STUDY FOR HOURS; THEY JUST DON"T WANT ME TO SLEEP. So this is quite different as I don't see any difference between keeping a table awake verses keeping the table asleep.

4) Pulling an all-nighter is probably way more comfortable if you can have a change of scene every few hours, but try to keep it on-campus if you are feeling drowsy. Those of us who spent way too many hours staring at physiology text books in grad school know that you start to feel a little strange while doing that late-night reading if you don't have coffee, soda, snacks, or something else to keep you awake....but stock up on these things for your own space. If you feel the need to take a off-campus break or just go outside for fresh air, make it short, focus on getting back on track with your work, and then go back to digging through those lecture notes. If you need to sleep --- DO IT! But do it somewhere where you'll actually be able to sleep for a few hours.

Kim

I just concentrate better when I study off campus becuase I get tired of the same old location, so I have to go far away (or even take bus at times) and keep going to new restaurants each time. Otherwise I just won't be able to concentrate or feel restless.

[Roman]

First off if you sleep you could miss desert :P

Hmm.. what if lots of people did that? I mean you could walk into the IHOP and the waitress could be asking you to lower your voice....... cause all the booths are filled (one person at each of course) with people asleep on their pancakes.

Personally, I think it would be funny to see everyone asleep at Starbucks. DOn't you love it when you go into a restaurant and find people sitting alone at a booth with a cup of coffee, and you and your friend or group can't get a seat together? I hope you aren't hogging a booth Roman... and I hope you aren't snoring.

Lol that would be funny

[Roman]

I think this is one of those things, that while in your situation it isn't fair, it's a general thing not allowed

Why are you saying that in *MY* situaiton it is unfair? I think it is unfair IN GENERAL. I mean the whole concept of taking something NEUTRAL (such as sleeping) as negative just because it is different is unfair, after all this is the very concept that is used to discriminate people by all kinds of things, including Asperger.

due to all the ways it turned out negatively for restaurants in the past.

Like WHEN in the past, and what happened?

I mean do you know that people actually tried it and it turned out negatively, as opposed to people NEVER even gave it a chance because they ASSUMED it is negative?

Okay lets compare two things you said:

First you say this:

I think sleeping is allowed on city buses, on a beach, that's also in public, but not around food...and I don't know why that's different from bus to restaurant.

You won't find logic or reason in this I don't think, it's just how it is.

But then you say this:

Honestly, if I had a restaurant, I wouldn't want to see folks sleeping in it.

In other words, you don't know that it is bad to sleep in restaurants, but STILL you won't allow it anyway. Why is that? Are you just saying that the mere fact that society considers something to be bad makes it actually bad?

wouldn't really say anything good about the food - might look like you ate my food and died.

Well, this is just silly.

[milivica]

>>>>Why are you saying that in *MY* situaiton it is unfair? I think it is unfair IN GENERAL. I mean the whole concept of taking something NEUTRAL (such as sleeping) as negative just because it is different is unfair, after all this is the very concept that is used to discriminate people by all kinds of things, including Asperger.

'your situation' = a student taking a catnap versus someone using the restaurant as a place to say sleep off a drunken stooper. And I know YOU think it's unfair in general, I don't. Answer this, why would you think it's fair to expect a restaurant risk getting slapped with health code violations for you to take a nap there?

If you want to get on 'discrimination' kick, you're picking the wrong lady, and the wrong topic. Now, if I were you, I would have launched into an 'age' discrimination debate. Babies are allowed to sleep in restaurants, so it is obviously a 'lie' that people are not allowed to sleep in restaurants cause babies are people. So, since I have proven you have lied, what what exactly is the cut off age?, or something along those lines. You won't win anything, but then again debating my feedback makes less sense still. Aspies are Olympic arguers, seasoned in the fine art of making mountains out of mole hills, and where no mole hills can be found, creating them out of their own sense or reality. We can't gel with others, so do the one thing we are competent at socially...wearing folks out!

>>>>Like WHEN in the past, and what happened?

Well I remember my days working in restaurants, so that would be beginning 27 years ago, people would come in drunk and pass out in booths, even on bar stools. Though sometimes it was just a very tired trucker. Either way and no matter what, they had to wake up and go, I almost got punched in the face so learned to watch it when I woke people up, no matter how gentle, leave lots of space...some folks just wake up swinging. One time I 'woke up' a guy in the entry way, lying on the floor...he'd had a heart attack! We found out after the cook called an ambulance.

>>>>>I mean do you know that people actually tried it and it turned out negatively, as opposed to people NEVER even gave it a chance because they ASSUMED it is negative?

Oh definitely, through my own very limited experiences, can't imagine the stories restaurant owners can tell.

>>>>Okay lets compare two things you said:

>>>>First you say this:
I think sleeping is allowed on city buses, on a beach, that's also in public, but not around food...and I don't know why that's different from bus to restaurant.

You won't find logic or reason in this I don't think, it's just how it is.

>>>>But then you say this:
Honestly, if I had a restaurant, I wouldn't want to see folks sleeping in it.

>>>>In other words, you don't know that it is bad to sleep in restaurants, but STILL you won't allow it anyway. Why is that? Are you just saying that the mere fact that society considers something to be bad makes it actually bad?

I know why it's 'bad' to sleep in restaurants, I meant in an 'ideallistic' sense I don't know why, YOU do not though, and don't think you'll find any logic or reason in it. Since I do know why it's 'bad' I wouldn't allow it if I had a restaurant.

>>>>Well, this is just silly.
Thank you! But I didn't mean it to be.

[mc4_a]

Why is it a health code violation?
I believe it's to prevent vagrants from buying a coffee and sleeping in a place all day long. Unsavory to say the least.

Also it's meant to keep restaurant staff from sleeping in the kitchen, which would cause unsanitary conditions for food preparation.

Lately, I find it to be pretty unsavory, unhygienic behavior (drool, snoring; Yeah, that makes me hungry). If there were a bunch of people napping at restaurant, I'd find a better place to eat.

Some of this is cultural. From what I understand, people in Japan are allowed to sleep in restaurants. So maybe you should consider moving there.

[The Pogue]

Too, remember that restaurants are privately owned. A restaurant table is not public property, like a park bench. (Even on a park bench, any behavior that disturbs others from enjoying the park can be excluded, such as sleeping.)

Restaurant owners can deny service to any person at any time. That is their right. I'd toss anyone so gauche as to sleep in my restaurant.

[milivica]

I'd toss anyone so gauche as to say 'gauche' :p

[Roman]

'your situation' = a student taking a catnap versus someone using the restaurant as a place to say sleep off a drunken stooper. .

Okay then I misunderstood. Incidentally, the way you put it now happened to be exactly my argument. Why can't they ONLY through away ppl with stuppor and NOT students taking a catnap?

Answer this, why would you think it's fair to expect a restaurant risk getting slapped with health code violations for you to take a nap there?

OKay in this case health code is unfair.

If you want to get on 'discrimination' kick, you're picking the wrong lady

Are you implying you are pro-discrimination?

Now, if I were you, I would have launched into an 'age' discrimination debate. Babies are allowed to sleep in restaurants, so it is obviously a 'lie' that people are not allowed to sleep in restaurants cause babies are people. So, since I have proven you have lied, what what exactly is the cut off age?, or something along those lines.

Actually you just made a great point to help my argument. They clearly use common sense in order to distinguish babies from adults. So why can't they similarly use common sense to distinguish students sleeping from drunken men sleeping?

Well I remember my days working in restaurants, so that would be beginning 27 years ago, people would come in drunk and pass out in booths, even on bar stools.

Well how about ONLY through away drunk ppl and not students? If you tell me that they need a general policy against sleeping in general in order to appear fair, no they don't. Remember, as OTHER PEOPLE told me on this post, restaurants can through away anyone they want. So why not get rid of no-sleeping policy and instead MANUALLY through away people who are drunk, homeless, etc.

One time I 'woke up' a guy in the entry way, lying on the floor...he'd had a heart attack! We found out after the cook called an ambulance.

So if they didn't let him in a restaurant, would it have magically prevented a heart attack?

[milivica]

Roman, I really think I understand how you feel. I also think I understand your line of logic and what it is that feels unfair to you. I don't think I'm the only one on the thread that does either, I think all of us do so try to focus on that a bit...I mean that kind of thing makes me feel better, even if I'm not agreed with.

But I don't think your issue is what you posted. I think your real issue, or maybe I should say 'root' issue, that would solve this and many other issues for you, is that you find it hard to put yourself in the other person's shoes, or borrow their perspective.

I know years ago, I often felt that people were kind of mindless lemmings that followed rules without question. I knew I was not a lemming, I knew I questioned things no one else thought to, and thought that meant I had sort of a greater individuality or it made me 'better' somehow, though I recognized it also made me friendless, it was just how I was, I couldn't shut off the questions or logic in my mind. They say some folks don't see forest through the trees, I think aspies see each twig and leaf on each tree, know how many trees there are, can reasonably calculate the amount of leaves per tree, tree per acre, etc... and probably can see the forest too - but completely miss THE POINT. Or something like that.

Anyhow Roman, please, try and see the perspective of the restaurant - that does not mean you have to change your mind or agree with them or supress your logic and questions, that's not what it means to see another's perspective. Think of it like a debate....I hear when you are on a debate team, you are given pro/con about topics, you don't necessarily get to choose.

Can you handle that? It's a lot harder than anything academic you'll ever do, so if you're not up for it I understand. If you are though (I'll check back) I'll argue FOR being able to sleep in the restaurant. If someone else beats me back, they can.

To answer your questions above, 1) nope I'm not pro-discrimination, 2) though common sense could be used to distinguish drunk sleeping folks from students sleeping is not permitted in restaurants so that's redundant, 3) not letting the heart attack guy in wouldn't have magically prevented his heart attack and I in fact recall the ambulance guy saying he was lucky to have had it there versus being home alone.

Last I looked up the meaning of Can't See The Forest Through The Trees:
Meaning: If you say that someone can't see the forest through the trees, you mean that they are so involved in the details of something that they forget or do not realize the real purpose or importance of the thing as a whole.

Knowing that, I'd say that should be part of the criteria for what aspies do. And the reason why, is not cause we're dumb or whatnot, it's cause to grasp the importance of all things social like sleeping in a restaurant as a whole, we have to be able to grasp the abstract in addition to the absolute...you are only grasping the absolute. IF I were to look at it only in absolutes, and not as a whole, I would totally agree that people should be allowed to sleep in restaurants. Now Roman do not take that last sentence and run with it! Because I am able to see it as a whole.

[Roman]

Roman, I really think I understand how you feel. I also think I understand your line of logic and what it is that feels unfair to you. I don't think I'm the only one on the thread that does either, I think all of us do so try to focus on that a bit...I mean that kind of thing makes me feel better, even if I'm not agreed with.

Thank you for saying this.

But I don't think your issue is what you posted. I think your real issue, or maybe I should say 'root' issue, that would solve this and many other issues for you, is that you find it hard to put yourself in the other person's shoes, or borrow their perspective.

I know years ago, I often felt that people were kind of mindless lemmings that followed rules without question. I knew I was not a lemming, I knew I questioned things no one else thought to, and thought that meant I had sort of a greater individuality or it made me 'better' somehow, though I recognized it also made me friendless, it was just how I was, I couldn't shut off the questions or logic in my mind. They say some folks don't see forest through the trees, I think aspies see each twig and leaf on each tree, know how many trees there are, can reasonably calculate the amount of leaves per tree, tree per acre, etc... and probably can see the forest too - but completely miss THE POINT. Or something like that.

Anyhow Roman, please, try and see the perspective of the restaurant - that does not mean you have to change your mind or agree with them or supress your logic and questions, that's not what it means to see another's perspective. Think of it like a debate....I hear when you are on a debate team, you are given pro/con about topics, you don't necessarily get to choose.

Can you handle that? It's a lot harder than anything academic you'll ever do, so if you're not up for it I understand. If you are though (I'll check back) I'll argue FOR being able to sleep in the restaurant. If someone else beats me back, they can.

Okay I don't have a problem with the whole pro-con stuff. I enjoyed it in my english and philosophy classes. That is also why I enjoy reading the religious sites so much because there are different pros and cons for different denominations and stuff. Even in my own physics work I am working on different competing theories aobut the stuff we don't get to see (something on much smaller scale than even particles) and I love it.

THE THING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS WHEN PEOPLE DON"T EVEN CONSIDER ANY PROS OR CONS. THEY JUST STICK WITH THE POINT OF VIEW THEY GOT FROM SOCIETY. If there were a big debate as to whether or not people should sleep in restaurants and all the pros and cones were considered and discussed, I won't have so much problem with it, because I would know that people CONSIDERED all sides of the coin as opposed to simply ignoring it.

Okay let me give you an example. Suppose someone supports Palestine because Israel suppresses the human rights of Arabs. I would have a problem with this argument because he "overlooked" the fact that Israel was doing it IN A RESPONSE of Palestinian agression. On the other hand if someone were to say "I know that Israel does this in response to Palestinian agression, so I have no problem with that; BUT I don't think Israel should be given a land on the first place because it was land of others and it was stolen from them" then I have a lot less problem with it. After all I know he payed enough attention to know that Israel was only acting IN RESPONSE of Palestinian agression. The only reason he didn't agree with the conclusion is because he also payed attention to something else, such as the history of Israel.

But you see, you would very rarely ever hear anyone SIMULTANEOUSLY insisting on the fact that Israel is allowed to defend themselves against Arabs as much as they do or even more AND ALSO insist on Israel being illigitimate and Israel of stealing the land, AND BE EQUALLY STRONG ON BOTH OF THE ABOVE CONFLICTING POINTS. Why? Because people have an agenda and they IGNORE all the points that contradict their agenda, and THAT is what makes me feel they are "mindless lemings".

You seem to think that it is Asperger thing not to see pros and cons. Well I feel it is NT thing. Because as an aspie I am fully willing to debate for hours all the pros and cons, I am just frustrated NT-s don't. Now, if thats the case then you will ask why is it that my own arguments are so black or white. Well, that is because I am offended by NT-s being black or white, so I am very strong in insisting on the points NT-s have "missed" and thus appear to be black or white in this respect. IF NT-s weren't missing anything and I saw an evidence of them debating, then I would gladly hold middle ground since it would give my mind the most freedom. But now when I see how certain points are bluntly IGNORED I can't help but feel compelled to INSIST on their right to be noticed and discussed.

Well I know that the question as to whether or not you are allowed to sleep in the restaurant doesn't exactly make the top news. But still, I am sure they had some discussion as to what location to build restaurant at, how many tables to put there, what kind of food to serve, etc. etc. etc. So why not also discuss whether or not to allow sleeping there?

To answer your questions above, 1) nope I'm not pro-discrimination

Okay one of the tactics of ppl who are pro-discrimination is refuse to identify the kind of discrimination that they support as discrimination. Thats why when you said you are a wrong lady to use discremination key on it made it sound that way.

Okay lets be more specific. Do you think that the way NT-s judge aspies is discrimination? And do you think NT-s have a right to judge aspies just for the fact that they are different or do you think NT-s should learn to tolerate the differences that aspies have? Some aspies argue that it is not the job of aspies to change but it is the job of NT-s society to accept them for who they are, because their differences doesn't make them "inferior" it is the prejudices of others that is the problem. Do you agree with it or not? Or what parts of it you agree and what parts you disagree?

2) though common sense could be used to distinguish drunk sleeping folks from students sleeping is not permitted in restaurants so that's redundant

The question is whether or not it would of been more fair to permit it. So to say it is not permitted because it is not permitted is circular.

3) not letting the heart attack guy in wouldn't have magically prevented his heart attack and I in fact recall the ambulance guy saying he was lucky to have had it there versus being home alone.

Exactly, and thats why I am saying that prohibitting sleeping in restaurants is NOT a solution to this kind of problem.

Last I looked up the meaning of Can't See The Forest Through The Trees: Meaning: If you say that someone can't see the forest through the trees, you mean that they are so involved in the details of something that they forget or do not realize the real purpose or importance of the thing as a whole.

Okay, please tell me in what part of my argument I was too focused on details rather than the big picture? I mean if you take the statement "people SHOULD sleep in the restaurant" and the statemetn "people should NOT sleep in restaurants" there is no difference in their level of details. So it appears like you didn't even get into the argument itself but just used your general knowledge that aspies IN GENERAL don't see forest for the trees and blindly decided that every single argument I make that disagrees with common notions should be based on this.

Okay if I were to give you benefit of the doubt and try to guess what you MIGHT mean, perhaps you meant that forest is the problem with drunk people and trees is the inconvenience it causes to students who want to sleep. The reason for this interpretation would be the fact that the former is a lot more important than the latter. But still, if there is a way to save the forest AND the trees, why not do that? I mean it is very easy to distinguish the person who is drunk from the student, so why not do that? Usually ppl pay attention to forest and not to trees because looking at every tree would be a lot more time and effort than the importance of these trees. But the point is that NO time and NO effort is needed to distinguish drunk ppl from students. It is obvious on a glance.

Knowing that, I'd say that should be part of the criteria for what aspies do. And the reason why, is not cause we're dumb or whatnot, it's cause to grasp the importance of all things social like sleeping in a restaurant as a whole, we have to be able to grasp the abstract in addition to the absolute...you are only grasping the absolute.

Okay i remember abstract/absolute from the RDI thing you PM-ed me earlier. But it just confused me because abstract and absolute are not opposites. Opposite to "abstract" would be "concrete" and opposite to "absolute" would be "relative". So can you define the meaning of abstract and absolute in the RDI context, because until you do I am simply confused by the terminology.

IF I were to look at it only in absolutes, and not as a whole, I would totally agree that people should be allowed to sleep in restaurants. Now Roman do not take that last sentence and run with it! Because I am able to see it as a whole.

Once again, show me the connection between the approach to the problem and the conclusion.

[mc4_a]

Have you ever considered contacting the local health department to see if this is an actual regulation? If it's not you can simply call around and find a restaurant that thinks this is ok. If it is based on law or regulation, you can petition the board of health or your local government to change this policy.

I don't agree with your point of view, but rather than fuming about it, you should consider actually trying to affect change. Presuming it's ok to sleep on another persons property is simply considered rude. While you might not agree with that point of view, it's better for you if you learn to respect that and act accordingly.

[CanRelate]

Restaurants are in business to make a profit. THis is often done by what they call "turning over tables", meaning seat the guests, take the order quickly, be attentive, give them the check when they are done eating, and cleaning and re-setting the table for the next customer..... thereby serving as many customers as possible.

If someone is using a table as though it is the library, that table is not being "turned over". If business is slow and there are many empty tables, it is sometimes ok to sit an study, if you have ordered a meal, and are not disturbing anyone. Some restaurants in "college towns" are more liberal in allowing people to stay a long time at the table....

Roman, in a different post you mention the management could manually go through the customers and get rid of the drunk and homeless, and leave the students alone.........Well, that is forcing the management to make discriminatory judgements about people, and forcing management to be selective about a policy which they want to apply to everyone.

People who are legally drunk don't necessarily smell of alchohol, nor do they necessarily sway when they walk. People who are homeless sometimes work full-time jobs, and no one would know they were homeless to look at them. So, in your selective criteria for the restaurant management to leave the students alone, how is the management supposed to know who is a student?

And a student (or anyone) who orders less than a full meal, and stays hours, is losing the restaurant money in that the table is not available for use by some other paying customer....

The "no sleeping" rule may turn out to be less about health code and more about profits. Or perhaps a bit of both..... After all, a restaurant is a private enterprise/private property.....many "rules" are up to them to make...

Some thoughts to ponder...

Regards,
CanRelate


Why are you saying that in *MY* situaiton it is unfair? I think it is unfair IN GENERAL. I mean the whole concept of taking something NEUTRAL (such as sleeping) as negative just because it is different is unfair, after all this is the very concept that is used to discriminate people by all kinds of things, including Asperger.