When cyberbullying topic is a good discussion but....

Cyberbullying discussions are good when topics broached are about intimidation, retaliation, control, creating an atmosphere of fear, stalking and the effort to try and ruin people's reputations. I think cyberbullying is all encompassing where it can fall under the stalking, intimidation, and harassment category. Whenever somebody discusses cyberbullying or bullying we generally know it's about harassment. But lately I've noticed how some people simply have the capacity to misunderstand conversations, blogs or vlogs and equate them as threats. We already have one such example that took place in court which proved one person's action wasn't seen as a threat. Just an overly active imagination here.

Let's expand on this here on what's an overly active imagination looks like.

In Russell Errigo's vlog he talked about his fears on how the California government could one day cut off funds to organizations in the hearing loss field in Julie Rems Smario Facebook discussion on June 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM.

My biggest fear is seeing a huge state cutbacks to Norcal, DCARA, GLAD and other sister organization who opposed the AB...2072. The state recognized them as one side viewpoint which does not meet the state standard for the funding purposes. The bridges have been burned.

I remember that comment very clearly. He's clearly concerned. There is no doubt about that.

A couple of months later in August 2004 he brought up the same points and concerns about the potential loss of fundings of deaf organizations in his YouTube video starting at the 1 minute 5 second mark. In that video he did refer elsewhere about a Facebook discussion he had a few months earlier discussing that same concern of his on funding cuts.

But here's the thing. I was a bit dismayed seeing intelligent people who actually thought Russell would call upon the government of California to encourage them to de-fund deaf organizations such as NorCal, DCARA and so forth. No such verbal threats ever happened from Russell. Russell is already on record hoping that this funding cuts WON'T HAPPEN to those deaf organizations. He is already on record as seen in the links I've provided. He clearly shows a concern for those deaf organizations who might see a cut in funds from the state in the coming months and years ahead.

So much for that.

Then there's another discovery on the curious mindset of how some Deaf people think that targeting other Deaf people is justified by contacting their employers. Actions manifested into this whole neurotic orgasm of this "deafhood" movement that has been running amok ever since.

Candy (see her blog) was a victim of a planned attack when nutty people actually contacted her employer based on a lie and disagreements over her blogging opinions and facts.  Although her workshop presentation at the 2010 IRS/DEAF Leadership Development Conference in Salt Lake City recently was a success despite their failed attempt to "boycott" her workshop.

Anybody with a mindset thinking their action is justified in calling an employer over an opinion piece or get upset when a Deaf person works with a variety of deaf and hard of hearing people and organizations (i.e. "working with the enemies") would be seen as borderline delusional. It doesn't pass the smell test when they know their action is designed to psychologically hurt, intimidate, and/or instill certain institutional fear in Deaf people by calling their employers. That action alone is a classic example of how it can fall under the cyberbullying or bullying category. And for those who contribute to help on addressing the cyberbullying problem but at the same time secretly nod in approval on the tactic of contacting employers is an example of hypocrisy in action.

The vulgarization of "deafhood" continues.

When global warming hoax kills...and fools millions.

It's one thing when, for example, thousands of Deaf/deaf/hh people are easily fooled by global warming hoax. But what happens when gullible people who seriously believe in the global warming fantasy kill themselves as a result?

From the "The Resilient Earth" it talks about the problems of propaganda and how untrustworthy scientists and policy groups were able to affect gullible people around the world:

In a news maker interview in the February 12, 2010, edition of Science, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science attempted to respond to the avalanche of criticism that has engulfed the IPCC since the uncovering of the Hadley CRU emails and the discovery that many of the assertions in the AR4 report were taken from untrustworthy sources. Field has been designated co-chair of the report by Working Group 2, which will examine the impacts of a changing climate for the 2014 edition of IPCC reports. He helped write the rare public acknowledgment of error apologizing for the statement in the 2007 IPCC report that stated the Himalayan glaciers were “very likely” to melt away by 2035.

“It's clear there really wasn't a body of evidence required to assign that "very likely" term,” said Field. “It's hard for me to figure out what might be a process that would sustain the credibility that should be associated with the IPCC process,” he continued, “I must admit I don't really have a mature strategy for how we deal with [substantive] errors.” And there in lies part of the problem—the hoopla surrounding global warming has been the result of a politically motivated, haphazard process that hurriedly prepared a series of slipshod reports based on shoddy, substandard science aimed at selling the dangers of climate change to the public. That process now stands revealed as a colossal farce.

A colossal farce is putting it mildly after a decade's worth of global warming screaming saying that this so-called "global warming" science was settled. Don't laugh. But for a deaf/hh guy like me who've known for several years the problems of this global warming theory (as caused by man) wasn't even for once fooled by all this only begs the question on exactly how many Deaf/deaf/hh people we're easily fooled by all this. The question is pressed harder when it comes to Deaf students at Gallaudet University.

When it comes to colleges and universities who help promote actively the global warming crusade, shouldn't they be held liable in their continual attempt to brainwash students rather than assure ways that they think for themselves? For example, say, at Gallaudet University?

Two years ago I wrote an open letter to Gallaudet University of which I emailed to then President Davila (but never gotten a response) about this whole global warming propaganda effort being pushed upon on what may be impressionable students. Though it was interesting to see that in a newsletter announcement in Inside Gallaudet there was an article entitled “Gallaudet to join Focus the Nation’s fight against climate change” back in 2007. And Gallaudet seem to not mind the fact that Focus the Nation organization use of scare tactics that were completely unfounded about the coming doom in a "few short years."

"Focus the Nation is exploding because, across the country, educators and students at every high school, college and university understand that we have just a few short years to act decisively to hold global warming to the low end of 3-4 degrees F."

And interestingly enough, that link to Inside Gallaudet's article is no longer there but can be seen in Archive.org. And if you look at the archived article you'll find a paragraph where Dr. Solomon of Gallaudet University make a suggestion to readers to read up on the 2007 IPCC's report on "Climate Change" as an authoritive report.

For more on climate change, Dr. Solomon suggests reading the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in April. This report is the first indication of unequivocal agreement among scientists that climate change is occurring. The panel’s Summary for Policy Makers provides a straightforward outline of their findings.

Yep. It's the same 2007 IPCC report that is riddled with errors, bad sources, multitudes of non-peer reviewed reports were used and the use of fake data to pressure policy makers to go along with the global warming scam. It's no surprise that a perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC.

How much longer til Gallaudet University own up on their push for this "global warming education" upon impressionable students? Despite the fact that the IPCC and their scientists and reports are now seen as wholly unreliable sources?

Where are the encouragements for professors, the students and faculty members to debate against the merits of this so-called global warming theory? Or is it a climate of fear on campus that they are unable to do so?

Conducive environment on the campus of Gallaudet University?

Here's a good blog piece that wonders whether the campus of Gallaudet University has a conducive environment (or not) for conservative students to form their own political group such as the "college Republicans"? Maybe its the same "climate of fear" that keep students who may be skeptical or don't believe in the global warming claims from speaking up or form their own little coalition? But you know what, there's no better time than now to do something about it.