Because I lack the experience, knowledge and authority, I refuse to embed the term “au****” into the guidelines. Doing so would have significant impact on the deaf community and would not be able to bear the responsibility of forcing the wrong interpretation upon the community. Until there is greater consensus on “au****”, therefore having less room for it to be abused, the guidelines will protect DeafRead by the “excessive negativity” clause and DeafVIDEO.TV by the harassment rule. Following this fiasco in which au**** was exposed to be both widely misunderstood and abused, I retracted my committment to Patti to add it to the guidelines. As Patti and I agreed more recently, I will instead work with the DeafRead team to incorporate a broader term that will offer tighter protection than that of the “excessive negativity” clause.Note that I am censoring part of the "a" word in Tayler's comment in the above for my own personal reason. You can read here on why. I could've replaced it with "avdism" though but either way I'm making this known for you readers.
And because of Tayler's refusal to include such a word in the Deafread guidelines numerous Deaf bloggers decided to boycott Deafread and not have their blogs show up on Deafread. One of the blogger is Dr DonG where he explained why he boycotted Deafread.
I have long since been speaking against au****. I have taken a stand against a****. I believe that if you “talk the talk”, you must “walk the walk”. Au**** hurts, and it hurts worse when it comes from one of our own. But it hurts worst when one of our own allows it AND profits from it.
That is the reason that I feel I can no longer be involved in DVTV, if au**** is allowed to continue. I cannot let someone directly profit from au****. It’s bad enough when Hearing people, like at Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, profit from au****, but we Deaf should not allow it, we should not accept it.So, people boycotted Deafread because of the "rampant" avdism seen in the aggregator list linking to blogs with attidudes of "avdism"? Right? What about Deaf Village's aggregator site, too? Now, isn't avdism seen in majority of DV's submissions include lots of stuff about how wonderful hearing and speaking is for children, CIs and their marvelous results, all technically defined as the "A"-word in all its mutations If so then why is DonG's website listed on Deaf Village's aggregator site as seen on DV's blog contributors list? And yet the most recent submission of DonG's in DV was on September 10, 2010 with a total of 24 submissions ever since he boycotted DR over a year ago over a single word.
Regardless, I still think it's rather a petty and trivial thing to boycott over a word when Tayler made clear on why he is unable to institute such a word into Deafread's guidelines.