The latest (seemingly) inside gag (for the Deaf community that is) by ConvoRelay's latest advertisement that caters mostly to Deaf people was brought to attention by Tayler in his vlog saying it was the "best ad" he'd ever seen. However, this ad could also be seen as an inside joke familiar mostly by those in the Deaf community and not in the hearing community. The ad is placed on the walk way at a relatively new subway stop location (New York Ave / Florida Ave/ Gallaudet University) that is close to Gallaudet University about 3 to 4 blocks away.
The ad, as a unintended consequence, possibly, could be seen as a double-entredre ad by those familiar with the name and its relationship with the culturally deaf community.
The first message could be seen as a poke at the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing organization by those who designed the ad. Maybe not. But if it is then it's a poke that reveals a long standing temper tantrum from some people in the culturally deaf community who are against the AGBell hearing loss organization. The ad, ironically so, is placed on the floor where the name "Alexander Graham Bell" can be walked all over by dirty shoes at a subway station near Gallaudet University, a hotbed of students who are against AGBell in more ways than one. Maybe that wasn't the intention of the ad designer (who designed it, btw?) but the ad is indeed on that floor and the name "Alexander Graham Bell" is on it saying, "You can hang up on Alexander Graham Bell" and it is located at a subway stop next (near) to Gallaudet University.
Makes ya wonder.
Just food for thoughts here.
The second message in that ad is the acknowledgment of the telephone technology which was a communication barrier for many deaf people. Although we need to remember the TTY technology of the 1980s and onward on how it has helped people with hearing loss to scale that communication barrier..... somewhat.
But here's the thing.
What Alexander Graham Bell invented was a blessing for us all, deaf, hard of hearing or hearing. His phone invention has inspired thousands of would be inventers to invent new and wonderful communication technology for us down the road. In fact, the telephone technology has inspired inventers of what a video phone would look like back even in 1910 as seen in a drawing below.
As for the ConvoRelay ad and the inside joke? Was there any double entredre intended? I wonder. If so, then it'd be getting kinda thin by now, dotcha think? It may be clever, maybe unintentional (who knows?), but only to those who are intimately familiar with AGBell Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing organization and the tiff that the Deaf community have against them. Even though the organization supports and recognizes the various uses of communication technology of every kind that can help deaf and hard of hearing people have communication access.
Like it or not, every time you use your cell phone or video phone you have Alexander Graham Bell to thank every time you answer that relay call or use your video phone. Where would communication technology be today if it had not been for AGBell? Maybe that's irony in of itself, wouldn't ya say?
48 comments:
Convo has made a poor marketing decision. In marketing 101, never put negative campaign in the same group or larger group of their target market. Convo has lost 5.5 million customers who has the ability to use VCO. VCO is the largest untapped market. VRS user with without using VCO is only 200,000 or less. Convo is using 1% of that market. They are shooting themselves to their foot.
AG Bell has done many good things and Tayler has been brainwashed for whatever reason.
You're absolutely right, Anonymous!
People don't realize that VCO is the largest untapped market and that is why ZVRS has been doing diverse marketing.
When DBC had their protest at AGBEll, ZVRS was at the protest and they were at AGBell as well.
There are more people with mild-moderate and moderate-severe than there are severe and beyond.
If Convo has VCO or has been considering VCO, they blew it.
What were they thinking?!?
Geez! Sorenson has never say anything about AG Bell in the advertising community. ZVRS has never say anything about AG Bell in the advertising community. Snap VRS has never say anything about AG Bell in the advertising community.
Major corporations have never say anything bad about people in the business world unless the criminal investigation along with the evidence comes up.
Your'e right, anonymous @ 11:02 PM. I forgot all about the marketing 101 and I am getting too old to remember!
When I saw the picture that Tayler showed in his video, my reaction? VCO people will win and laugh at it.
Did you see Barry aka The Holism in #11 in the comment section under Taylerade's vlog at DVTV? PBS.org has the very reliable information about the history. It was interesting to learn that AG Bell had won 600 cases in the "patent" lawsuits. I cannot imagine how I can deal with the 600 frivolous cases and I'd get the lobotomy! LOL. AG Bell was the survivor dealing with many lawsuits.
Psst, Tayler, as an owner of the Deafread and DVTV be careful what you said.
Be good.
White Ghost
I think it was a great ad. Telephone always have been a problem for deaf people so i dont think they cared who invented telephone (especially why they invented) and I personally believe telephone would have been invented anyhow if AGbell wasnt born. There were many men before AGbell before telephone, there was telegrams and other inventions.
Hang up AGBell simply mean we are in control of the conversation if you seen their last ad on youtube.
My interpretation, as I put it in the vlog, is that it's a known controversy that AGBell falsely claimed the telephone invention was his. So to "hang up" on AGBell was to bring awareness to this.
The automatic interpretation that I thought the deaf community would have is that AGBell was the man behind eugenics, which is today known as genetic engineering. He was also against intermarriage between deaf individuals, so that they would be prevented from having deaf children.
There's YET another interpretation I can think of -- that's the beauty of the ad. It's so wide open to interpretation. It makes us think. The ad caused someone to take a photo of it, me to vlog about it, another person to tweet about it, and mike to blog about it.
AGBell has many controversies surrounding his legacy. What a better dude to "hang up" on in the deaf community. :)
Tayler,
I have issues about you mentioning Eugenics. Eugenics has been around forever as long as 20000 years ago. In America, we don't have Eugenics or so called Neo-Euguenics like your mother said (Ella). Whenever the population grows, we naturally had to be creative to grow genetically engineered crops. When population grows, there aren't enough doctors to sustain the population, therefore Stem Cell will take over. We are 7 billion people on this planet.
Deaf community will be extinct as we know it. It has nothing to do with AG Bell. It has lot to do with human choice just like choosing to get Cochlear Implant. NAD said Government is considering to close out schools. It's happening so be it!
"Hang up" has another connotation: emotional or mental problem. AGBell certainly had his hangups when it came to Deaf people.
BTW, the cartoon is probably from Punch, a satire and humor publication in the 1880's.
Congress __quietly__ said that Alexander Graham Bell was NOT the first inventor and that someone else was the one who was THE first inventor. If you so desire, you may find the information aforementioned on a search engine, say, Google.
Jean Boutcher
Marketing 101: there's no such thing as bad publicity. This ad has a lot of people talking, which is probably what Convo was shooting for with this ad.
Tayler:
"The automatic interpretation that I thought the deaf community would have ..."
funny. didn't your deafhoodized leaders tell you the exact same same thing with regards to the a-word and your DeafVideo.TV website?
"Dream on, Tayler!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPUNKs49lgM
He was the first to patent the telephone invention in the U.S. What Bell did for the telephone is akin to what Henry Ford did for the automobile even though Ford wasn't the first to come up with the idea of a car, neither was Bell. History knows that. Yet, it was Bell who invented the telephone by patenting it.
Any communication advancements you use today, you will still have to thank AGBell for his hard work and American ingenuity.
Sure, control of the conversation (visually, that is). Yet the ad is on the ground at the subway stop near Gallaudet University which makes it all the more ironic see the AGBell name.
I wonder who will have the gall to video tape themselves stomping on that ad over AGBell's name, snickering and laughing?
Dianrez, in the sentence in Convo's ad the words "hang up" turns out to be a verb signifying an action against AGBell meaning one is to hang up the phone receiver on him. You can see an image of a phone receiver in that ad above the words. Nothing about "hang ups" as far as I can tell
Anonymous 8:04 AM:
AGBell led an eugenics movement in the United States. Eugenics on humans. Sterilization of humans. Not plants, but humans.
The movement was actually picked up by Adolf Hitler. You know the rest. (This is documented.)
The deaf community may be extinct one day, as you put it. I think the bigger question is, what will be exterminated next? What about after that? Where do we stop? Have you read the book "Brave New World"?
Don't dismiss the fact he was against intermarriage between deaf people. This infringes on human rights.
Whatever controversy surrounds Bell, there's certainly one which makes you stir! :)
Anonymous 12:01 PM:
"The automatic interpretation that I thought the deaf community would have ..."
It's a thought, not a fact. However if the "automatic interpretation" is different than my guess, all the more to prove my point: the ad was designed to mean different things to different people. Clever!
Tayler,
Back in the days of AGBell there was no understanding of genetics of deafness. There was no understanding of deafness itself since many babies born back then lost their hearing not because of genetics but other causes.
Hitler took the idea of eugenics from AGBell and went to the extreme through select killing. Bell's attempt was to stem the tide of seeing more deaf children from deaf married couples. It's no wonder that because of the lack of understanding on exactly what caused deafness thinking that two non-genetic deaf couple will produce deaf offsprings. They had no idea or understood very little about deafness and the underlying causes. No one understood or had access to biological Biological science. At the time it was about survival and to ensure that offsprings are born with all the senses intact.
This gets a bit ridiculous by going after a man who had only so much information on biological science at the time 120 years ago on deafness. It was natural that many people, not just AGBell, who was against marriage between to deaf people because simply didn't not understand the underlying causes of deafness. And you are using AGBell's lack of scientific knowlege on deafness against him. It had nothing to do with ignorance on the biological aspect of deafness.
I think it's a very poor argument to use the intermarriage argument against AGBell. He had a biological reason based on extremely limited knowledge compared to what we now know today.
Mike,
"Hitler took the idea of eugenics from AGBell..."
There! That's your beef with him. Hang up on AGBell.
;)
LOL.
Yet, even that's not a reason to "hang up" on AGBell. AGBell had nothing to do with what Hitler did. Hitler's action was all his own. All Hitler did was used a germ of an idea from AGBell, modified it and created a gruesome warfare against humanity through ethnic cleansing (aka the Holocaust) in the effort to create a "super-race." AGBell's idea wasn't about ethnic cleansing or "super-race" but to curb seeing more deaf children through the marriages of deaf adults.
Mike,
Can you absolutely say that if not for the Eugenics movement, led by AGBell in the United States, Hitler would have thought of it? No. He was inspired, and that, unfortunately, came from AGBell. He had something to do with it, no matter small or big -- it ended up influencing what became the largest and deadliest genocide in world history.
No matter how little understanding there was of genetics, it infringes on human rights. World Health Organization (WHO) describes Reproductive rights as:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence."
Today we understand that a pair of individuals with the connexin 26 gene have a high probability of producing deaf children. He would have then said: two persons possessing certain genes should then be barred from marrying one other. It wasn't the means, it was the end. He wanted the genes abolished. Like you said, he believed deafness was hereditary in nature.
Tayler,
It's amazing you cannot overcome the past. 120 years ago is far different time than we are today. Seriously, you are using internet, video phone, etc that are patented by Bell. You are supporting Bell's invention since you used it. Interesting note, AT & T holds licensing for all mobile phones that belonged to Bell patents. Video Conferencing owns by Bell.
Today, AG Bell is not into eugenics, etc. They are trying to make every deaf people's lives easier. They have their own private schools. They are successful organization and 5 times bigger than NAD.
They also helped with Closed Captioning and Relay system as lobbyist in the late 80's. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have this. Ag Bell influenced Hollywood to subtitle DVD's for the deaf. NAD didn't do this. Now, NAD's biggest supporter is AG Bell. Gally has boarded AG Bell member. Gallaudet is becoming Cochlear University in few years from now. Anytime you mock at AG Bell, people will disrespect you.
AG Bell has done more things for the deaf than any organization in this country alone. It's sad that you're thinking of the past and not present.
Tayler:
"It's a thought, not a fact. However if the "automatic interpretation" is different than my guess, all the more to prove my point: the ad was designed to mean different things to different people."
wrong. ALL things are open to interpretation, as are ALL things written, acted, dramatized, politicized. your point is meaningless.
since you mentioned your "thought", the original question asked to you will be rephrased for specifically for you: "didn't your deafhoodized leaders all think you would have the SAME "automatic interpretation" about a-wordism and it being in your R-List as you?"
your comment to mike:
"Can you absolutely say that if not for the Eugenics movement, led by AGBell in the United States, Hitler would have thought of it? No."
can you absolutely say that if not for Sparta, that Hitler would have thought of eugenics? no.
nice try.
Tayler:
"It's a thought, not a fact. However if the "automatic interpretation" is different than my guess, all the more to prove my point: the ad was designed to mean different things to different people."
pepsi means different things to different people but we are talking about AG Bell and history - at least you are in describing eugenics and Hitler in the same sentence as AG Bell, so your point is moot unless you want to give credit to Convo for being unoriginal, and thus, causing people like you to express their thoughts and interpretations in a similiar fashion about an old, out-dated topic.
a quote for you:
"History can only be an attempted interpretation of earlier ages by the modes of thought current in our own. The foreground of human life we can see with exactness, but the past is foreshortened by the atmosphere of time."
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=70025
pay attention to the last sentence, and you'll see why assuming Bell caused Hitler to be inspired to kill six million Jews is without merit, context, or originality.
nice try.
When it came to eugenics movement in USA, AGBell's name isn't as prominent as other well known names and that is a fact. Only among the deaf extremists are the AGBell name used often in conjunction with eugenics.
There's many other names and no one has gone after them: Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Harvey Kellogg, among many others. Eugenics is eugenics, deaf or not. Besides, if eugenics are in practice, you'd be sure that there would be an uproar over it and there hasn't been any except by the ASL extremist over something that isn't currently happening. .
The bottom line here: energy wasted. And, loss of potential VCO customers and in the end the deaf signing extremist community continuously shoot themselves in the foot.
And then when schools are affected and parents opting more to steer far away from having their own child picking up on sign language, you guys have no one to blame but yourselves.
At least consider "Leave AGBell Alone!" by Jaelstrom:
www.jaelstrom.com/2011/02/leave-agbell-alone.htm
Remember, attitude is EVERYTHING. It determines how far in life you and/or your organization will go.
Mike, the double entendre of "hangup" wasn't mentioned in connection with the sidewalk ad, it was to point out that the man himself carried misconceptions to obsession.
First: his extensive research into the records of various schools for the deaf with the purpose of collecting information on deaf students' parentage. Not only did this violate confidentiality by today's standards, those were published with student names. I am sure that many families containing hereditary deafness were mortified in those days of "taint" stigma.
Second: After a point, Bell realized that he could not conclusively say that deaf parents will beget deaf children. The overwhelming majority of born-deaf students had hearing parents. Oddly, I don't think that this was published.
Third, to the end, he proposed guidelines against deaf people marrying and conveniently cited genetics as a reason. He knew it was a weak argument, but he was intent on preventing sign language and gathering of deaf people. He also wanted deaf children separated and taught within the public school system for the same reason.
He grudgingly recognized that preventing current deaf marriages might lead to "living in sin" so reasoned that preventing cultural development through separation would be the best long term answer.
He was aware of the contradictions to his theories so never actually pushed for anti-marriage laws.
Still, his hangups were powerful enough to promote an overly paternalistic structure of maintaining hearing power over deaf people. He opposed Deaf teachers. He refused to meet with the leaders of a young NAD or contribute as other people were doing for it. He had little to do with Gallaudet College or its students. He associated only with benevolent authorities who felt as he did and drove the oralist philosophy in America as its wealthiest benefactor.
Similar to the telephone gambit, he used adventitiously and late-deafened childen to showcase oral successes and to push for oral-only schools with separation of the young from the older students.
In doing so, he set back the rise of a Deaf professional class and a Deaf-centric educational system nearly a hundred years.
The sidewalk ad is a gleeful dig at what Alexander Graham Bell stood for. It implicitly recognizes the Deaf society's long-standing resentment of Bell and his legacy born of prejudice.
Criticize it as poor taste if you will, just realize that your criticism does not represent the feelings of the thousands of orphans of Bell's shortsighted legacy.
Not knowing this legacy, oral and HOH may not understand the sidewalk ad. Meanwhile, it gives a humorous tip of the hat and acknowledgement to the appreciative Deaf people.
Anonymous 3:51 PM:
Then all history is without merit.
Candy:
His prominence in eugenics increased greatly when he presented his paper, Memoir Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race, before the National Academy of Sciences in 1883, and sent a copy to members of Congress.
No one needs to associate AGBell with eugenics. He did it himself. :)
Candy:
"Only among the deaf extremists are the AGBell name used often in conjunction with eugenics."
that would explain Tayler's view.
good point.
Tayler,
The meaning of eugenics changed over time. From the late 1880s to early 1900s it was about the control over the carrying of certain traits through forced sterilization and/or through the prevention of marriage. The understanding of hereditary deafness was not even well understood at that time compared to what was understood in the 1930s and 1940s. Hitler took eugenics to a whole new level through the act of murder via executions and applied science to create a "super-race."
This is apples and oranges here, yet both are fruits. From the time the concept of eugenics was introduced in the 1800s, ideas and philosophies about eugenics changed over time as a social movement. Yet the concept of eugenics is much older than AGBell. It goes back to the days of Plato dating back some 2400 years ago on ways to control undesirables from human reproduction. Even infanticide was a common practice back then to rid of undesirable babies.
What's ridiculous is to assign AGBell as the sole inspiration for Hitler's role in the Holocaust. Rather it was American eugenicists who inspired Hitler's attempt at purification and the building of a "super-race." Not only him but many of his supporters in his build up of the Third Reich in the 1930s who admired America's eugenic social movements of that time.
Also, the Holocaust was not the largest and deadliest genocide in world history. You have China and Joseph Stalin who created such genocide that was twice as large Hitler's.
I think this is simply a case of over-fixation on Alexander Graham Bell.
Dianrez,
Back then was a different era, a different way of thinking, a different set of philosophy, and certainly not a clear understanding on how hereditary (genetics) works. This odd AGB fixation is getting out of hand, I'd say.
Mike, the word "legacy" has deep implications. It is not a forgotten history, it is a continuing pattern, a heritage that we STILL LIVE TODAY.
We are still fighting prejudices of hearing people based on the teachings of AGBell and his institutions today. To hear and speak being a measure of adequacy as human beings, even as irrational as it may be on the surface. There is still an aggressive promotion of the belief that hearing and speaking are REQUIRED for success.
We still hear eugenic ideas rearing their misguided heads today...see Patti's blog on it for personal narratives of today's Deaf women about remarks made to them during their pregnancies. See the controversy in England about culling deaf embryos and the profoundly ugly comments made in the Brit newspapers about a Deaf couple wanting to preserve their deaf embryos.
We still encounter the fear and unwillingness of hearing people to deal with deaf people in many situations including obtaining employment and medical care.
AGBell is a symbol and more. Its legacy today is much bigger than the man that lived long ago. Over-fixiation? The use of that word is denying that the problem exists. And it touches on EVERY person with any deviation from the average hearing status.
There's a difference with today than that of the past and that has to do with how successful technology has contributed to the listening and speaking aspect for people with hearing loss.
Saying "over-fixation" is not about denying a certain ideology, concept, philosophy or problem saying it does not exist.
Dianrez says "...see Patti's blog on it for personal narratives of today's Deaf women about remarks made to them during their pregnancies."
I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide a link to Patti's blogpost. I am sure that many peope would love to read the blogpost.
Jean Boutcher
Dianrez,
Imagine the comments from Deaf people if such a story where you have two deaf couple who asked to have their in-vitro pregnancy done in the lab to ensure that an embryo would come out as a hearing baby and not a deaf one due to both having genetic deafness? Say, a hearing and deaf couple did that? Or a hearing couple did that?
You would almost hear the howls of protests of "eugenics".
Dianrez..
Well, you'd think someone like me from deaf family and very involved in deaf culture in a BIG metropolotian area, that I would have seen this "legacy" you speak of. Truth is, no, I didn't see anything like that growing up. AGBell's name was hardly invoked. Sure, I have seen some people make fun of and poke jabs at "oralist". Those of us who sign but can hear with HA's were considred "Okay" whereas those "oralist" were seen as a strange duck. Nothing about AGBell in a negative light. I have never seen so much hatred since I landed on the deaf blogosphere three years ago.
So, I think this is all part of ASL extremist agenda and nothing more. Reflects badly on the whole deaf signing community. Yup.
Remember Deaf Echo's "Who's the Authority on Deaf culture?"
According to the author, it is deaf/hh folks like ME!, the DOD's. (too funny)
Keep at 'em Dianrez and one day you'll understand what I'm getting at as well as others too.
How is that ad going to help with promoting deaf awareness? How is that ad going to remove misconceptions of deaf signing folks? Got an answer? Please share.
Remember, Michelle Westfall said that us DOD's are the Authority on deaf culture. (I love this!!)
;o)
I'm surprised a conservative missed this point: in England it was the STATE who wanted to cull the deaf embryos, not the couple.
That makes the matter of who wants to save what embryo irrelevant: the decision was taken out of the PARENTS' hands.
The overall principle still holds: deaf people are considered less desirable even at the embryonic stage. This ideology we need to combat in order to preserve our value to humanity as all of humanity each has something to contribute.
Getting desperate, are you? What does my political leanings has to do with the embryos example when mine came down to examples of how Deaf people may react to personal choices of culling embryos that do not carry the deafness gene?
Candy, on "Who's the Authority on Deaf culture?" does not mean that babies born with hearing loss belong to the Deaf culture. If they actually believe that then they have rocks in their heads. Insane to even think that.
The link to Patti's blog containing letters from pregnant Deaf moms: http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the-right-to-be-deaf-part-i/#comments
Candy, I would regard serious students of Deaf Culture such as researchers, historians, dramatists, writers, artists, etc. and who live within the Deaf community as authorities on Deaf Culture.
Those who grew up Deaf of Deaf have an edge, true, but do not necessarily know all the ramifications without studying it and comparing it against wider cultural studies.
Implicit in the "authority" appellation is a RESPECT and LOVE of the culture; otherwise output would be considered at best, incompletely informed and poorly backed up.
Regarding the ad: I don't think it will make Hearing people curious enough to learn about AGBell's legacy. They might just conclude that it's a joke having to do with Deaf people not being able to use phones. So, no, it is not useful to deaf awareness. What it does is validate Deaf dissatisfaction with the AGB legacy, and perhaps spark hope that someone out there actually understands.
And Dianrez, before you open your mouth to throw out a political comment regarding my political leanings perhaps you need to review what I wrote in 2007:
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2007/12/stop-eugenics-anti-abortion.html
Anonymous 9:33 PM:
Hundreds of published works link AGBell with eugenics. If they're all authored by Deaf extremists, so be it.
If I were a Deaf extremist, DeafRead wouldn't be administrated the way it is. If I were one, I wouldn't have published this post on DeafRead.
Ciao! :)
Mike..
Absolutely, deaf culture does NOT own deaf babies.
Dianrez..
when one has LIVED one has more knowledge that one that has studied. And, I'll leave it alone at that.
What made me think that whole thing (Authority issue) was too funny because DOD's also have varying views on deaf issues.
Tayler:
"If I were a Deaf extremist, DeafRead wouldn't be administrated the way it is. If I were one, I wouldn't have published this post on DeafRead."
please explain.
I never said Tayler is an extremist. I did say:
"Only among the deaf extremists are the AGBell name used often in conjunction with eugenics."
However, Tayler strives for diverse posts on DR, thus this makes him unique and unlike typical deaf extremist, or rather these pure ASL Extremists.
If one supports ASL/Bilingual, that does not make one an extremist.
It's the behavior beyond supporting a view. Such as an email group that contacted my employer. That's extreme. Every single one of the people in that group are extremists. No doubt about it.
Right, Candy. It's the behavior behind the person despite support for bilingualism. Just because one has had a bad experience in the 50s or 60s growing up learning how to speak appropriately does not mean AVT of today (along with advanced hearing technology) is the same as it was back then because that just simply ain't true. Today is a whole different ballgame than back in the 50s and 60s.
But it's funny whenver people claim to have "oral success" yet attack those who clearly have proofs of their own oral/aural successes simply begs the question the person's own claim to success while attacking others for that.
mcconnell
Thanks, Candy.
http://orangebrownrit.blogspot.com/2008/03/sign-on-now.html
The link provided above lists reasons as to why Bell was not the first inventor. Another link below also explains about Bell's plagiarising the patent and bribery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902596.html
The information about above can be found in "The Telephone Gambit".
Bell has been known as the father because most people are still not aware about Bell's plagiarism.
Jean Boutcher
Tayler:
"If I were a Deaf extremist, DeafRead wouldn't be administrated the way it is. If I were one, I wouldn't have published this post on DeafRead."
at least you acknowledged there are Deaf extremists who go around making demands with regards to how people administer their websites.
a couple examples:
John Egbert
Ella Mae Lentz
Barbara DiGiovanni
Patti Durr
Dianrez
Dr. Donald Grushkin
perhaps in reading Digi's posts about how you, apparently, distort truth and facts, one comes away with an automatic interpretation that you are either a liar and a manipulator, or Digi is a liar and a manipulator.
one thing is for sure, though: Ella Mae Lentz inspired both you and Digi to accuse (implicity and otherwise) one another (among others) of lying, manipulating truths and facts, and/or being a-wordists.
your inspiration, in other words, prompts another automatic interpretation: you are a Deaf extremist.
hmmm
Reading anonymous's comment has me pondering...
Brings back something I know will always come back no matter how much we try to move on. (I know I have tried...)
Only extremists will go so far to attempt to remove a popular CI blogger.
It's clear who initiated the effort, who was behind the effort and who executed the ban. All that without any evidence. To this day, evidence was never forthcoming.
So, in retrospect, I'd say the anonymous commenter is right.
Accusations are backed up by citations and proof or else must be discarded.
Anonymous should come out from under that rock and produce evidence so that people can examine it and defend themselves.
Otherwise, let's return to an adult discussion of substantiated facts and principles.
Post a Comment