Deafread continues to improve

Elsewhere on a positive note, Deafread continues to improve in its standing. This uptick is slowly gaining grounds since 2011 after an all time low global Rank of 2,553,855 per my screen capture. Visiting the Alexa site reveals the changes. Looking at my screen capture from last year in December of 2012 showed a global Alexa Traffic Rank of 2,124,154 while ranking in Canada yielded a rank of 86,239. Today showed a global rank of 2,064,335 and a ranking of 56,297 in Canada. A definite improving trend. For what it's worth I am noticing more and more people using Deafread now and it is now becoming much more adequately diverse on the type of blogs and people that grace the aggregator site's. So much for certain Deaf factions' boycott attempt over petty reasons in their effort to control Deafread's aggregator output and to force Tayler Mayer to fall in line with their ideology and deaf politics.

Tayler refused to so do and refused their online bullying tactics.

Good. We need people like Tayler Mayer who can think independently and not become coerced by people who think bullying and slandering are the answer.

Another interesting finding is that people are actually looking up my name in Deafread as seen in the "Top Search Queries results for Deafread.com" search results near the bottom of the Alexa page. Approximately 3.51% of the traffic searches in Deafread went for looking my name up in Deafread.

Dudes. I can't be that popular!

Deafread, still surviving, still thriving since the big boycott walkout of 2009.

Cyberbullying Email Group Discussion from 2010

Here's a copy of a cyberbullying email discussion I was in a few years ago. I believe with what has been happening lately warrants the releasing of this group email discussion for public consumption. 

A known deaf person personally invited me and numerous other well known deaf people in the community to contribute in a private email group discussion on cyberbullying.  All names have been changed using initials only. Some initials do not reflect the same first letter of any names (e.g. first name or last name). Some initials do correspond with either a first or last name. Other initials I have purposedly mixed them up. Some style of writings were slightly modified to avoid detection. Signature lines were deleted to avoid identifying who said what. The purpose here is not about the names or who was doing the discussing. The purpose is to show what went on during those email discussions. This email copy represent about 1/3th of the discussions that went on. It's a long piece of email discussion that I cobbled together for your viewing information.

Again, this is not about names.

This is about a discussion on cyberbullying that went on in a group email discussion. I plan to release more of these email discussions at a later time. For what it was worth the discussion eventually broke down with accusations cropping up and misunderstandings. Some opted out early into the discussion.  This is a long email copy with the opportunity to learn what was discussed by various deaf/hh individuals.

Enjoy.


Note: Two double line breaks signifies a new thread. A single double line break separates comments.



===============================
　

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM, “S”wrote:

Greetings all,

Lately the subject of cyber attacks and bullying has come up on Deafread and Aslrocks. As you know, its a subject I feel real strongly about and one that I have ZERO tolerance.

Was thinking, since many of you likewise feel the same way, the only way to end this cycle is by taking a stand to say "stop". Such bullying tactics have lead to many individuals being verbally attacked or trashed on blogs and vlogs. Employers have been contacted, families have been hurt, and self-esteem has been destroyed. Fear gives in, and paranoia sets, to the point some don't even blog or vlog anymore. Ridiculous to see oppressive actions on our own community. Its one thing to disagree with one another, its an entirely other thing to set out on a witchhunt. We could achieve far more working together in harmony, in unity, in the best interest of our future generations of Deaf babies and children.

Hence, this message is a simple request. Many of you are aware, and participated in an article I wrote about Zero Tolerance on Racism, which included A*dism.

I would like to do something similar, and get a quote from you about zero tolerance for cyber-bullying attacks, witchhunts, etc.

If you are real serious about seeing such attacks end, then I hope you are willing to show it by participating. By showing quotes from a diverse wide-variety of folks with different backgrounds, my goal is to show the Community that no matter who we are, no matter what we do, no matter that we may strongly disagree on issues, and/or even actually agree on an issue (here's hoping :) for that matter, our discourses, even heated discussions can be healthy, but cyberbullying is not. I think it behooves us to be responsible to ensure such does not continue to happen and such is why, we need to demonstrate this ourselves -- not separately, but together all on the same "page".

That's the gist of it. I look up to you all as leaders in your own right, the passion you bring to shed more light on various issues to help educate each other. This unified effort is to combat one thing, put an end to cyberbullying.

I hope you agree to send me your thoughts by way of a quote. If you think someone else should be added to join this effort, by all means, include them. The more who do join, the less the divide is amongst us.

I would like to post all of our quotes in one article, perhaps as a guest blogger on one of your sites. Would be neat if someone could also asl the piece once its done. The beauty of doing this is to ensure everyone understands one thing we can all agree on: Zero tolerance for cyber attacks and bullying. Such message can do well to actually strengthen our Deaf Community's ties. Who knows? We don't know until we try.

============================

“L” wrote, 10/06/10

　

There's actually a LOT of history to this effort already. You probably know most of it, but for those who don't, I'd start with: Deaf-Hope The Pact (link).

J, do you have more stories about the already-checkered history of this effort? I remember that X was involved, as was R.

I'm not even sure what ZERO tolerance means, after the fact...

- L.

　

=======================


“P” wrote, 10/06/10:

　

Sounds like a good plan. Article for which reading literature q so I'd know who the audience will be.


==========================================

“B” wrote, 10/06/10:

　

My question is simply this: when does it end? I mean, we've come to a full circle in little more than a year. People will do what they want to do -- no amount of leaders can come together and change that.

It is kind of funny how we are asking them to learn something from this. I think we should ask this of ourselves: what are we learning from this experience??

I think if we keep responding to this, it will only fuel the fire.

As an individual among those who are being attacked (cyberbullied, if you may), I think it is best to let it go.

Someone has to or the cycle will never end.

======================================

J wrote, 10/06/10:

B,

Good food for thought.

Which strategy do we pay the higher price? Which strategy do we risk more?

We know for a fact that in recent weeks, gay youth suicides are on the rise because of cyber-bullying. There is now a call to action within the LGBT community.

Do we remain silent with hopes of not adding fuel to the fire?

Or do we risk seeing Deaf people commit suicide because of hatred/ridicule they experience online?

J.


=================================
=================================

　

S wrote, 10/06/10:

Thank you P! Audience are ppl who read blogs and vlogs. Could be in writing, could be as a video. Whole point is to show a variety of us. L, actually, it started long before the Deafhope pact.


J, and other Deaf womyn and myself posted abt putting an end to cyberbullying on Deaf-CommUNITY blogsite abt 4 or 5yrs ago. Zero tolerance meaning we all take a stand together to state we as individuals do not accept cyber-attacks and bullying. Real simple actually, and in our own words, short n sweet.


S.


===================================

“S” wrote, 10/06/10:

Excellent point J!


===============================
“J” wrote, 7 Oct 2010:



B,

Good food for thought.

Which strategy do we pay the higher price? Which strategy do we risk more?

We know for a fact that in recent weeks, gay youth suicides are on the rise because of cyber-bullying. There is now a call to action within the LGBT community.

Do we remain silent with hopes of not adding fuel to the fire?

Or do we risk seeing Deaf people commit suicide because of hatred/ridicule they experience online?

-J

========================================


“B” wrote, 6 Oct 2010:




P,

My question is simply this: when does it end? I mean, we've come to a full circle in little more than a year. People will do what they want to do -- no amount of leaders can come together and change that.

It is kind of funny how we are asking them to learn something from this. I think we should ask this of ourselves: what are we learning from this experience??

I think if we keep responding to this, it will only fuel the fire.

As an individual among those who are being attacked (cyberbullied, if you may), I think it is best to let it go.

Someone has to or the cycle will never end.
============================================



“P” wrote, Oct 6, 2010:

Sounds like a good plan. Article for which reading literature q so I'd know who the audience will be.


====================================
====================================

　

“L” wrote to “S“, 10/06/10”

Actually, I'm feeling more in line with what B has been saying...

This is structural. It's bigger than us taking a stand. It's a difference between how we each see the force of our own actions against others versus the force of others' actions against us.

It seems related to the whole thing of oppressors not being able to see that they are oppressing, and the oppressed seeing every twitch, with us each having way too much of both oppressor and oppressed inside. Both blinding and blinded...

What I'm seeing out there is, "Yeah? Well, your guy did THIS!" "Oh yeah? Well your other guy did something worse to us!" "Oh yeah?..."

Breaking the cycle means somebody has to be ABLE to say stop and actually HAVE it stop.

At this point, I'm not very hopeful...

- L

==================================
==================================

　

“S” wrote to “L” 10/06/10

In isolation perhaps diff ppl have said stop. But all of us together in one place taking a stand? Nope.


This would be one helluva strong message to our Community. Every effort counts in my opinion. Won't know til we try, eh?
=================================

“L” wrote on 6 Oct 2010 21:12:05 -0700


Actually, I'm feeling more in line with what B has been saying...

This is structural. It's bigger than us taking a stand. It's a difference between how we each see the force of our own actions against others versus the force of others' actions against us.

It seems related to the whole thing of oppressors not being able to see that they are oppressing, and the oppressed seeing every twitch, with us each having way too much of both oppressor and oppressed inside. Both blinding and blinded...

What I'm seeing out there is, "Yeah? Well, your guy did THIS!" "Oh yeah? Well your other guy did something worse to us!" "Oh yeah?..."

Breaking the cycle means somebody has to be ABLE to say stop and actually HAVE it stop.

At this point, I'm not very hopeful...

- L

===================================
===================================

“B” wrote to “S” on 10/06/10”

Then, this is your fight.

All I ask from you is to respect my decision to let this go.

Thank you and good luck.

====================================


“S” wrote on Oct 6, 2010:


In isolation perhaps diff ppl have said stop. But all of us together in one place taking a stand? Nope.


This would be one helluva strong message to our Community. Every effort counts in my opinion. Won't know til we try, eh?

=================================
=================================


“L” wrote to “B” and group, 10/06/10”

“S”

It TAKES all of us to agree, but there IS no "all of us" to agree.

There is a really fundamental dynamic going on here that we're trying to sort of wish away.

B, can you explain it any better?

- L

====================================


“L” wrote on 6 Oct 2010


Actually, I'm feeling more in line with what B has been saying...

This is structural. It's bigger than us taking a stand. It's a difference between how we each see the force of our own actions against others versus the force of others' actions against us.

It seems related to the whole thing of oppressors not being able to see that they are oppressing, and the oppressed seeing every twitch, with us each having way too much of both oppressor and oppressed inside. Both blinding and blinded...

What I'm seeing out there is, "Yeah? Well, your guy did THIS!" "Oh yeah? Well your other guy did something worse to us!" "Oh yeah?..."

Breaking the cycle means somebody has to be ABLE to say stop and actually HAVE it stop.

At this point, I'm not very hopeful...

- L

=======================

“S” wrote on Oct 6, 2010
Excellent point J!

=================

“J” wrote to “B” on im Brune" 7 Oct 2010:


B,

Good food for thought.

Which strategy do we pay the higher price? Which strategy do we risk more?

We know for a fact that in recent weeks, gay youth suicides are on the rise because of cyber-bullying. There is now a call to action within the LGBT community.

Do we remain silent with hopes of not adding fuel to the fire?

Or do we risk seeing Deaf people commit suicide because of hatred/ridicule they experience online?

J


===================================
===================================

“J3” wrote to group on 10/06/10

　

Thanks S for including us. I would like to take some time to read this and all responses. This is not easy one after what we have gone through. Who wants to go through this again? It may be easier just to stay away from cyberworld. But heck no, you are right, we can do better than this.

So which is which... ummm...

===================================
===================================

“P” wrote to group on 10/07/10:

Greetings S et al:

I want to thank you for initiating this collective response. Internet defamation, attacks, harassment via promoting falsehoods and inciting others to attack folks via their workplace, affiliations, and government agencies unjustly is definitely not cool when do you need a quote by?

Also - an ASL and/or international version is very important so if any way i can assist - holler. I understand the temptation to let it drop, to be a turtle. This does not make things go away - it just smolders or emboldens. Too many good voices have gone silent - too many good souls have been hurt. MLK Jr said A man dies when he does not take a stand for that which is just, right and good.

====================================
====================================


“J4” wrote to “J” and “P” 10/07/10:

　

J- I agree with you. S, thank you for starting this important dialogue again


We have nothing to lose by taking a stand together. DeafHope did have a public petition created by a Deaf lawyer to stop Cyberbully together as a community during 2008 at our Tea Party. X was the first to sign it along with Y. Both S and I signed it as well. We did experience backlash for starting the petition but it created a much needed dialogue. It was a proactive statement by us as a community. It was worth it.

Now I think it is time for us to step it up with our personal statements before we lose a Deaf person to suicide. Sure we will experience backlash but we are all in it together to support one another. Prevention instead of reaction goes a long way.

-”J4”

===================================
===================================


“B” wrote to group on 10/07/10:


S and everyone else,

Since my last email asking that my wish to let it go to be respected, I got three emails disagreeing with me, but with serious implications. First, I do not appreciate the emails by J2 and J, I felt they were truly disrespectful to my decision by implying that I may have little or no regard for other Deaf people's lives. It is very insulting.

Consider this perspective: I am respecting the lives of other individuals by not thrusting my opinions of their actions uninvited. It begs the question as to why exactly anyone would want to be travel agents for guilt trips on those who have no desire for these travel packages?

By refusing to respect my decision to let it go rather than to fight it with implications that I contribute to the suicides within our community can and should be construed as an early form of cyberbullying.

As for P, once again I felt disrespected. Rather than agreeing to disagree, my position is now considered "turtle" (which I assume is a thinly veiled analogy to cowardice) and throwing in a quote, by Dr. King no less, saying I'm less of a man than those who wish to fight this? Another example of cyberbullying in its early form.

Sometimes it takes a bigger person to take the brunt of it and let it go than to look for retaliation and being self-righteous.

If you feel it is necessary to bash my decision to let it go, then, please remove my name from this email list.

Once more, thank you and good luck!

-B
===================================================

“S” wrote to group on 10/07/10

　

I would much prefer to see this request done in each site...DR, DVTV, and ASLrocks before final quotes are posted on a blog and done in a video format with ASL and captions. I would feel better knowing that this is an effort to reach out to all and that no one is excluded. Perhaps do request via other deaf forums as well.

Also a message to start fresh, meaning - attempts to rehash is not productive. However, there will be some who might demand apology before being able to start fresh. So we do need to keep that in mind....

I do see why B thinks it might not work, because there will be ppl who feel that they have not reached some sort of closure....

Just sharing my perception...

-S

======================================
======================================

“S” wrote to group on 10/07/10

Also....i am of the opinion that with these request we probably should refrain from using any key words that have cause division.

======================================
======================================

“M” wrote to group on 10/07/10:

　

B,

Your mentioning "implications" of cyberbullying raises the fundamental questions I'm having about this call to action and reflections.

I believe this call by S although noble is too superficial for what is truly needing in this community both in and out of Deaf v/ blogosphere.

What is needing I personally believe as someone who's deeply entrenched in Deaf Cultural and ASL Studies dealing for so many years with all kinds of people both Deaf and hearing is recognizing and respecting the Deaf-centered definitions, social rules, historical ways, and positively potential ways of dealing with crisis. They exist and do work but have been badly battered in the "open" via DeafRead, and yes other "open" Deaf discussion arenas.

Can we begin to discuss cultural as well as personal interpretations of what consists of an insult? What is considered impolite? What is considered insignificant to some but a great insult to one or few? What is considered respect to us or is the same thing considered
hypocrisy to others?

Is pointing out untruths/lies a necessary "insult" or embarrassement that must be avoided? Does it have to do with confidence that comes with a healthy cultural connections with people around us or does it has to do with belittling others or even another culture/language?

Etc etc.

I need to stop now but I know this could become something good. However just quoting and shouting out "stop cyberbullying" won't work. Cuz we seem to have different ideas and ways to deal with it an we haven't even have a collective agreement to cherish and respect our Deafhood, history, Deaf-centered work and fight against a*dism. Etc etc.

========================================

“B” wrote on Oct 7, 2010:

S and everyone else,

Since my last email asking that my wish to let it go to be respected, I got three emails disagreeing with me, but with serious implications. First, I do not appreciate the emails by J2 and J, I felt they were truly disrespectful to my decision by implying that I may have little or no regard for other Deaf people's lives.


It is very insulting.

Consider this perspective: I am respecting the lives of other individuals by not thrusting my opinions of their actions uninvited. It begs the question as to why exactly anyone would want to be travel agents for guilt trips on those who have no desire for these
travel packages?

By refusing to respect my decision to let it go rather than to fight it with implications that I contribute to the suicides within our community can and should be construed as an early form of cyberbullying.

As for P’s email, once again I felt disrespected. Rather than agreeing to disagree, my position is now considered "turtle" (which I assume is a thinly veiled analogy to cowardice) and throwing in a quote, by Dr. King no less, saying I'm less of a man than those who wish to fight this? Another example of cyberbullying in its early form.

Sometimes it takes a bigger person to take the brunt of it and let it go than to look for retaliation and being self-righteous.

If you feel it is necessary to bash my decision to let it go, then, please remove my name from this email list.

Once more, thank you and good luck!

-B

======================================
======================================

　

M2 wrote to “S” on 10/07/10:

As a reader of mostly bloggers with an occasional trip to vlogging sites that were references in the blogs, I have my thoughts that are really irrevelant to this discussion because I do not have a clue as to what happened in 2008. I was not there.

So, I do not know if what I saw constitute "cyberbulling." I think people do it to themselves. I read cyberbulling blogs and do not respond because it is so off base and borders on ludicrous. I can choose to respond and engage in battling words, or I can choose to ignore and be at peace with my decision not to respond. That's where I can understand B's thoughts.

I think we all have to assume responsibility for responding and for engaging in potentially cyberbulling activities when we choose to.

I also think we all ought to be more ready to explain our points of view that could be confusing to others. If I write words that I eventually realize were hurtful, I would apologize quickly.

I don't think our problem is cyberbulling per se, I think the problem is that bloggers/vloggers are not able to look at themselves and acknowledge whether they have had been cyberbullying or wrote harsh words or were confusing readers or what have you.

That happens on both ends of the spectrum. There's no respect for different points of view, and there's no respect for experiences that are so different from the bloggers or vloggers. Does that constitute cyberbullying? I don't know.

It could be ignorance and a hint of arrogance....they think they know better what we need to do.

I think it is a world that invites both awe and repulsion. What do we do about that? I don't know the answer either..

The bloggers and vloggers seem to have ALL of the answers; honestly, I marvel at their knowing everything in life. I wish I knew as much as they do.

M2
========================================

“S” wrote on Oct 7, 2010:

I would much prefer to see this request done in each site...DR, DVTV, and ASLrocks before final quotes are posted on a blog and done in a video format with ASL and captions. I would feel better knowing that this is an effort to reach out to all and that no one is excluded. Perhaps do request via other deaf forums as well.

Also a message to start fresh, meaning - attempts to rehash is not productive. However, there will be some who might demand apology before being able to start fresh. So we do need to keep that in mind....

I do see why B thinks it might not work, because there will be ppl who feel that they have not reached some sort of closure....

Just sharing my perception...

=======================================
=======================================

　

“L” respond to “S” and group on 10/07/10:

Do you think quotes will stop S2? If S2 continues, what are we supposed to do? It only takes one backsliding cyberbully for the whole online community to be thrust back into the same old dynamic!

Can ANY of you get S2 to stop?

I felt that the most recent exposure of what S2's capable of doing was informative to a couple of those who HAD felt that S2 was the "good guy" here, and now realize that he's a BIG part of the problem and needs no longer to have this behavior supported...

J5 has realized that he had crossed the line by calling people names, and has taken steps so that he does not react publicly to taunting such as that S2 did AGAIN yesterday, but that will not be enough going forward if folks like S2 are given a free pass by their friends.

Part of the problem is, as B noted, that cyberbullying is easier to see done TO you than it is to see when YOU are starting to cross over the line, so there needs to be feedback from trusted friends in the backchannel and the ability to actually take HEED of this feedback whenever one of us has crossed the line.

But that takes the "society" part of the "open society". An "open society" that overemphasizes the "open" at the expense of "society" becomes exactly the sort of "Lord of the Flies" situation we have right now. CAN S2's friends tell him when he's crossed the line, and have S2 reign himself in?

- L

========================================
========================================

“X” wrote to group on 10/07/10

The idealist in me

I have always been against cyberbullying and never have condoned or encouraged it. It pains me greatly to see when others respond in a destructive and mean manner. Yes, I would love to see a world where people always treat each other with respect and do not engage in destructive behavior towards others. It would be great if this coordinated response caused many people to see the light and modify their behavior patterns.

The realist in me

Unfortunately, bad behavior always been seen on Internet since the early days. I'm not trying to make an excuse here: it's a simple fact that it's seen everywhere on the Internet across the entire spectrum of users. There are many reasons for this which I won't go into here. It's sufficient to say that people behave very differently on the Internet than in real life. With Internet easier than ever for anyone to access, there are more people present who are not well versed in how to handle negative messages/events.

Even if everyone here today agrees to go ahead with a coordinated response against cyberbullying and other destructive behavior on the Internet, we'll only see a short term effect before it disintegrates back to the old ways. Even if everyone change their behavior tomorrow, it will be inevitable that more people will drawn in and these new people are not attuned to the agreed upon changes. The cycle will repeat itself. In this case, we aren't trying to manage a small group of people, but dealing with a larger population, who don't always follow the same rules, don't know each other personally, don't always get along, respond in many different ways and have their own prejudices and agendas.

The major problems that I have noticed: Not everyone sees cyberbullying in the same light and many times it's a matter of perspective. I've seen too many cases where people who have proclaimed they are against cyberbullying but selectively scold cyberbullies while ignoring/permitting others on their side who engage in the very same behavior.

I think a better approach would be not to aim to eradicate cyberbullying behavior, but to develop effective techniques to deal with these types of behavior on the Internet. Cyberbullying will always exist on the Internet but there are steps to minimize it.

I've tried to model this myself over the years, when I've been attacked numerous times:

1. Always respond in a polite manner, without resorting to degrading comments.
2. Know how to choose the right battles to fight and which ones to avoid.
3. Know when it's best not to respond (most of time, the aim of cyberbullying is to trigger a reaction and while it's very difficult for the person on the receiving end, sometimes the best thing to do is to ignore and not to respond at all.)

Accept the fact that everyone has had different kind of upbringing, were exposed to different things and learned to handle things in different ways. Some of these things they learned or were exposed to may have been positive or were negative. Human nature varies greatly among people. Lastly, it's virtually impossible to change other people's behavior patterns, if they are not open to it.

If there is one thing that I don't like, it's fighting a losing battle. I would prefer to devote my time and energy towards an approach that acknowledges real world factors and will pay off in the end. I may be a bit too pragmatic for my own good but if I see something that will be effective for the long term, I'm all for it.

========================================

B wrote on 10/07/10

　

Be prepared for an heart attack everyone...

I actually agree with M here.

Well said.

=========================================

M wrote on Oct 7, 2010:


B,

Your mentioning "implications" of cyberbullying raises the fundamental
questions I'm having about this call to action and reflections.

I believe this call by S although noble is too superficial for what
is truly needing in this community both in and out of Deaf v/
blogosphere.

What is needing I personally believe as someone who's deeply
entrenched in Deaf Cultural and ASL Studies dealing for so many years
with all kinds of people both Deaf and hearing is recognizing and
respecting the Deaf-centered definitions, social rules, historical
ways, and positively potential ways of dealing with crisis. They exist
and do work but have been badly battered in the "open" via DeafRead,
and yes other "open" Deaf discussion arenas.

Can we begin to discuss cultural as well as personal interpretations
of what consists of an insult? What is considered impolite? What is
considered insignificant to some but a great insult to one or few?
What is considered respect to us or is the same thing considered
hypocrisy to others?

Is pointing out untruths/lies a necessary "insult" or embarrassement
that must be avoided? Does it have to do with confidence that comes
with a healthy cultural connections with people around us or does it
has to do with belittling others or even another culture/language?

Etc etc.

I need to stop now but I know this could become something good.
However just quoting and shouting out "stop cyberbullying" won't work.
Cuz we seem to have different ideas and ways to deal with it an we
haven't even have a collective agreement to cherish and respect our
Deafhood, history, Deaf-centered work and fight against a*dism. Etc etc.
entrenched in Deaf Cultural and ASL Studies dealing for so many years with all kinds of people both Deaf and hearing is recognizing and respecting the Deaf-centered definitions, social rules, historical ways, and positively potential ways of dealing with crisis. They exist and do work but have been badly battered in the "open" via DeafRead, and yes other "open" Deaf discussion arenas.

　

========================================
========================================

J4 wrote to B on 10/07/10:

Hi B. J and I were throwing in our thoughts. I was just having a dialogue. Can u show what I said that was disrespectful to you? This well help me see what I said (unintentionally) to offend you.


======================================
======================================

　

J6 wrote to group on 10/07/10:

I pledge that I will start being diplomatic and start having reasonable dialogue with everyone including K, S, etc. We all need to stop spinning and work towards appropriated solution to the issues.

But will S2 go along with that? Or is his fixation about M, D, B2, DBC, Deafhood is too deep to change for the better?

B, I apologize for my insensitive attitude that I demonstrated to you on your blog two years ago and hope you will forgive me and whenever we meet anywhere in the country, I would like to shake hands to show my secure desire to be friends with you.

J6


=======================================
=======================================

“S” wrote to J6, B, P, K and to group on 10/07/10:

Thank you all for joining this important dialogue. Everyone’s input is respected, valued and appreciated. B, if by saying you don’t want to participate, then I can certainly remove you from this list. I was hoping that although you wish to let it go, you would want to be a part of the discussion. If not, just let me know, thank you.

The points J, M, and K have made are valid. There will always be a “R” or a “S2”. It’s what we choose to do with such comments or cyber-attacks/bullying that is important. From my view, I see a pattern where this issue surfaces almost annually. The educating never stops. Like racism, it rears its ugly head from time to time. Take for example when Obama was elected President, folks thought racism was finally going to end. We know from media publications, racist remarks by the infamous Tea Party about Obama, that this is not true. However, what we do see growing, is a stronger force of people united taking a stand each time it comes up. That is what this is about. Each time it comes up, we grow in numbers to take a stronger stand against cyber attacks and bullying. This doesn’t just mean what happens on the blogs or vlogs, and no matter what culture you belong to, it’s clear bullying attacks when behind scenes where the bullying happens with people sending email threats, calling employers to “squeal” on a person, many of you have experienced this yourselves. This is not acceptable.

P, I appreciate your offer to help. One idea I was toying with, but I don’t have the means to put it together, was to have this be an “infomercial” of the different folks here either defining what it means, or signing stop, or a written quote flashed on the screen – to make it all under 4 mins of course. Basically to make it so that it is “not cool” to attack or bully, so that it becomes a popular thing way to think. That’s what commercials do, shape the way the public should think about an issue or an item. Hope this makes sense. “Next year” we may have a different idea when it comes up again. Like I said, educating folks is an on-going process, it never ends, nor should we ignore it either. I think what I have seen is different folks speaking up on blogs and vlogs. Which is a good thing and needs to continue. But all of us from different backgrounds, together sharing and supporting one message, no.

Thanks to those of you who are considering working on this collectively. May the dialogue continue.....


======================================
======================================

　

“S3” wrote on 10/07/10:

I like the idea of infomercials. keep things simple....people remember simple messages.


======================================================

　

P wrote on 10/07/10

Hi all

Ah my heart is still ticking B - no heart attack. Just an open heart and marveling at this dialogue. Thank you all. I do want to take a minute to apologize to you B if my quoting MLK made you feel I was targeting you. My intent was very far removed from that. This was my intent and desire:

MLK saying... A man dies when he does not stand for that which is right just and good. "Man" was the dominant language of the time. What he meant was a HUMAN - we as a PEOPLE - when we look the other way we cause more harm than good. It is not a question of manhood - or cowardice as MLK framed it

It is a question of doing right and a plea for our souls so there be no
death of the spirit. Too many good folks have been silent. I fully respect what ever choice you choose B. I am speaking to us as a commUNITY and I understand that folks are at different places and stages and have different needs at this time. I’m sorry you felt I was targeting you.

Feel free to disagree with the position without accusing me of something I did not do. I just stated my values and principles - I do accept that many folks hold different values and truths and opinions.

Please know that if I wanna say something directly to you - I will totally honor your spirit and say it directly. I wont play games - there are no veils coming from these quarters.

re: turtle - I was responding more to J3's comment: " It may be easier
just to stay away from cyberworld." But then he quickly followed it with: "But heck no, you are right, we can do better than this."

My purpose of mentioning the turtle - is because it is a mighty temptation for me too.

M wrote:
“Can we begin to discuss cultural as well as personal interpretations of what consists of an insult? What is considered impolite? What is considered insignificant to some but a great insult to one or few? What is considered respect to us or is the same thing considered hypocrisy to others?

Is pointing out untruths/lies a necessary "insult" or embarrassement that must be avoided? Does it have to do with confidence that comes with a healthy cultural connections with people around us or does it has to do with belittling others or even another culture/language?

These are very important questions and maybe the first step in this dialogue is to have folks within this listing share what they see to be the answers to these questions. This may lay the good groundwork for something much better to come forth.


========================================
========================================

J2 wrote on 10/07/10

At the risk of sounding too brash:

I would like to point out two things:

1) I haven't seen anyone who thinks or has said that cyberbullying is OK or is a cool thing to do. Everyone is against it. The problem is their own perception that what they are doing doesn't count as cyberbullying.

2) This similar approach has been tried before with the Pact. It's obvious by now that it has failed and didn't have the desired effect in the long term. Why repeat something similar? It won't work. Find a different approach.

=======================================
=======================================
　

T wrote to group on 10/07/10:

　
S...thanks for initiating this dialogue. I especially appreciate the diversity of people you included in this email:) I would love to see a stop to the targeting of organizations, members of organizations, and individual naming and name calling. I think we have so much to gain by being respectful of each other. That includes other people's opinions even if they are different from our own. I am sorry that B felt put down for his opinion. I don't think that was the intention of anyone but more that this is a forum to either want to be involved in this project or not. So B...please do stay involved in this discussion.. and I do want to thank you for bringing out the truth on Deafread to the facts of the letter writing to employers. That was very brave of you and honorable.

I would love to see guidelines enforced and some oversight to stop witch hunts and harassment which are all forms of bullying but taken to the extreme of riding the line of slander and libel. Vendettas to destroy people and organizations should be recognized and eliminated on aggregators. There is a difference between freedom of speech and terrorism. Simply not accepting those kinds of vlogs and blogs eliminate the chances an aggregator becoming infested by people that simply have agendas to harm others because they feel they have been slighted or owed apologies.

As a hearing parent, I am sadden at some of the blogs I read that literally make the D/d people and organizations look horrible, that spread untruths, and basically turn hearing parents who need information desperately away from D/d people, Deaf communities, and the Deaf blogosphere. Because of all the wonderful D/d people who have influenced our family's lives, I am grateful and hopeful through today's technology that other hearing families can make connections they need to be supported. Many times this happens through blogs and vlogs. And we all know that when our D/d children feel supported and accepted, the possibilities are endless for them.

I think all of you have made some very good suggestions and through this dialogue, I hope that we can all come to some kind of consensus on how is the best way to start awareness building of cyberbullying and how to improve the aggregator systems so that people feel safe again participating in today's cyberworld.

I am happy to participate in this...

T

=====================================
　

J wrote on 10/07/10

J2:
I'm glad u pointed that out.
What would be an effective approach to take?
I think we should consider various strategies before settling on one.


======================================

J3 wrote on 7 Oct 2010


At the risk of sounding too brash:

I would like to point out two things:

1) I haven't seen anyone who thinks or has said that cyberbullying is OK or is a cool thing to do. Everyone is against it. The problem is their own perception that what they are doing doesn't count as cyberbullying.

2) This similar approach has been tried before with the Pact. It's obvious by now that it has failed and didn't have the desired effect in the long term. Why repeat something similar? It won't work. Find a different approach.

===================================


“S” wrote on Oct 7, 2010:

Thank you all for joining this important dialogue. Everyone’s input is respected, valued and appreciated. B, if by saying you don’t want to participate, then I can certainly remove you from this list. I was hoping that although you wish to let it go, you would want to be a part of the discussion. If not, just let me know, thank you.

The points J3, M, and K have made are valid. There will always be a “R” or a “S3”. It’s what we choose to do with such comments or cyber-attacks/bullying that is important. From my view, I see a pattern where this issue surfaces almost annually. The educating never stops. Like racism, it rears its ugly head from time to time. Take for example when Obama was elected President, folks thought racism was finally going to end. We know from media publications, racist remarks by the infamous Tea Party about Obama, that this is not true. However, what we do see growing, is a stronger force of people united taking a stand each time it comes up. That is what this is about. Each time it comes up, we grow in numbers to take a stronger stand against cyber attacks and bullying. This doesn’t just mean what happens on the blogs or vlogs, and no matter what culture you belong to, it’s clear bullying attacks when behind scenes where the bullying happens with people sending email threats, calling employers to “squeal” on a person, many of you have experienced this yourselves. This is not acceptable.

P, I appreciate your offer to help. One idea I was toying with, but I don’t have the means to put it together, was to have this be an “infomercial” of the different folks here either defining what it means, or signing stop, or a written quote flashed on the screen – to make it all under 4 mins of course. Basically to make it so that it is “not cool” to attack or bully, so that it becomes a popular thing way to think. That’s what commercials do, shape the way the public should think about an issue or an item. Hope this makes sense. “Next year” we may have a different idea when it comes up again. Like I said, educating folks is an on-going process, it never ends, nor should we ignore it either. I think what I have seen is different folks speaking up on blogs and vlogs. Which is a good thing and needs to continue. But all of us from different backgrounds, together sharing and supporting one message, no.

Thanks to those of you who are considering working on this collectively. May the dialogue continue.....


===============================

J5 wrote on 07 Oct 2010

I pledge that I will start being diplomatic and start having reasonable dialogue with everyone including X, Y, etc.

We all need to stop spinning and work towards appropriated solution to the issues.

But will S3 go along with that? Or is his fixation about M, XX, Y, DBC, Deafhood is too deep to change for the better?

B, I apologize for my insensitive attitude that I demonstrated to you on your blog two years ago and hope you will forgive me and whenever we meet anywhere in the country, I would like to shake hands to show my secure desire to be friends with you.
together all on the same "page".


========================================

Milestones....

I recently looked at my site counter and saw that it is nearing the 1 millionth hit mark. It'll be a few more months until that happens. I figured that this is an opportunity to pause and reflect back on my blogging history going back 8 years beginning in October of 2004. I've become, I believe, the longest running and most posted deaf/hh blogger with probably having the most cumulative blog hits as well.

I covered many subjects on American politics, deaf politics, deafness issues, technologies, medical science, the environment, Earth science, the nonsense global-warming-as-caused-by-human-beings-which-will-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-20-feet, interviews with Matt Hamill over the years who is now making a comeback, the "deafhoodism" cultural mindset that people would swear it is a cult following, the failed walked outs against DeafTV and Deafread, and many more topics. Some blogs I wrote were funny ones like the ever so famous Monopoly money debacle to covering serious issues like the rapes at Gallaudet University which continues to get worse are enough to keep pace with my varied interests on what to blog. Enough so for readers and fans to keep coming back. I thank you for that. With 1,978 blog posts so far and another milestone coming up as reach closer to my 2000th blog post I never imagined my blog would come this far 8 years later with so many twists and turns along the way. I met a lot of haters along the way but they were by far outweighed by the many fans and readers who like to read my blogs and contribute their opinions and thoughts.

Milestones.

They can only be reached if you take your first step and keep moving forward.

Missing Deafread Link

Not sure what his problem is about an old Deafread's link to my old blog piece that I did 5 years ago saying the link is missing from the Deafread aggregator list on a particular page number. In this case on page 1809 as he stated in his blog piece.

Egbert is unable to find Deafread's old link to my blog piece on page 1809 in Deafread because it is now has moved to page 1816. Tomorrow or the next day it should move to page 1817 and so on. Egbert need to go back again to Deafread because the link in Deafread's aggregator list that link to my old blog piece is still there where it is currently on page 1816, not on page 1809 which was the case a few days ago.

Egbert needs to remember that every new blog link that gets added to the Deafread's aggregator current list on page 1 pushes all older archived links further back a page or two. So if you linked to an older archived link in Deafread, say, on page 1815 (http://www.deafread.com/page/1815/t/) on the aggregator list to find Hair Cell Regeneration, for example, and click on the page 1815 link again a week later you won't find it on that page since the Hair Cell Regeneration location will be found on page 1816 or 1817 or further depending on how many new blog links that got added to Deafread aggregator's current list on page 1. Deafread captured my old blog piece on July 20, 2006 and that is the date you should be looking for rather than the exact page number of the aggregator list if you happened to save the link to that particular page number. If you can't find it on that page number simply go back a page or two until you can find it.

This is all real simple stuff that really need no explanation here. Just try and keep up with the growing list of pages on the Deafread aggregator archived list. Nothing sneaky on what Deafread has been doing all these years. Pretty straight forward stuff here. Instead Egbert jumped to conclusion without checking out why a particular link wasn't on page 1809 and if had taken the time he would have found it a few pages further. The link to a particular blog you were looking for, Egbert, never disappeared from Deafread's aggregator archived list.

Voting Illusion in DeafRead

In DeafRead's Extra section there is an opportunity for readers to vote on a blog piece they like. And with enough votes it could go to the main page of DR's aggregator page. I don't care much for votes but I noticed an usual pattern after my blog piece had gotten 2 or 3 votes in the beginning.  Another blog below mine in DR Extra suddenly went 2 or 3 votes higher over mine. Sensing that something is not right simply because Deaf Anthology is linked to a blog with a YouTube video containing no captions. The video contain words that were sung throughout the video. While mine was a fully dedicated Halloween blog.

I figured this was due to a bit of ego factored in only because my blog piece was above the Deaf Anthology's piece in DR Extra and seeing my number go up while Deaf Anthology's stayed behind. Then I started to see a pattern. I asked a few of my friends to vote for my blog piece and I let them know it was an experiment. It didn't take long until I was 1 or 2 votes higher than Anthology's. And it wasn't long also until the number of votes for Anthology to up 1 or 2 votes higher than mine. In no way did I touch or instruct my friends to vote for Deaf Anthology in case you're wondering.

I realized the inherent weakness when it comes to online voting. One person can easily go to Best Buy and go online using their laptop computer displays, or to a phone store with their display notebook laptops with an internet connection, a library computer room, at work, or at a college campus computer room and vote multiple times. Though I didn't go to those places except for my work. And if one has a smart phone with an internet connection, that same person can vote for the same blog article again. Not only that if you have a family then there are probably more laptops to access, including daughters' and/or sons' smart phones if they have one (mine do not).

After November 3rd (first picture at top) I let it alone for a week and saw no changes in votes. On Nov 10th with 16 vs 19 votes I decided to add three more votes (see middle picture) making it 19 vs 18 votes. It wasn't long until Athology's vote went up by three, too, with a vote of 19 vs 20 that same day. The next day Anthology's went up another two votes with 19 vs 22 votes just for good measure I suppose. 

Now, I'm letting people and Tayler Mayer know this because voting can be done multiple times by one person on his/her own blog in DR Extra. I've done this myself along with the help of my friends' help. No big secret or shame in telling you people this. My intention was not to embarrass Tayler Mayer about this. Granted, DR's online voting is not perfect and I realize that. I'm sure Tayler Mayer is already very aware of this shortcoming and realize the possibility of deceitful voting practices in DeafRead Extra.

And, yeah, this is a slow news day for me.

But happy Veterans Day! Thank you for all you have done.


Update: As soon as I blogged this I saw that Deaf Anthology's number of votes jumped up to 23. Congratulations!

UPDATE II: Poor guy, he's deflecting using a fantasy rebuttal. Tsk.

Point of View

Let's get this straight. No one is saying that having different point of views is censorship. As in the case for Deafread, people have been and are trying to force the owner of Deafread through intimidation, protests, slandering, harassing, and conjuring up myths about the owner of Deafread, Tayler Mayer, in order to get him to acquiesce and run an aggregator site that accept only Deaf POV videos and institute a so-called better "R-List." Thus pushing the practice of censoring to the extreme.

What is "censor"?

cen·sor
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

In fact, Tayler and his moderators do censor what's allowed in Deafread since there are certain requirements to be met in order for a blog or a link to be posted in Deafread. But the big irony is that because of Deafread there are loads of POVs from all kinds of people who are deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened, culturally deaf, CODAs, cochlear implant wearers, signers and non-signers alike, those who prefer to speak and listen, and hearing parents of deaf/hh kids.

Tayler Mayer made it clear that he does not want to censor Deafread by restricting it even further and have it accept Deaf POVs only but rather have Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing POVs instead.

One central reason for developing DeafRead is that Jared and I wanted to empower the deaf community; we wanted to allow everyone a voice, a place where people could speak out.

What is censorship?

the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

So what Don and others are advocating? More censorship and control through force and intimidation against the owner of Deafread, and get him to capitulate at all cost.

If Don and others want to create their own aggregator site that accepts only Deaf POVs they are more than welcomed to create an alternative aggregator site that reflect their own policies, rules and ideals. Deaf Village did the same thing by breaking away from Deafread to create its own blog aggregator site. A place to provide aggregated and filtered online content that reflects a spirit of inclusion, collaboration and partnership among the diverse members of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community.  They didn't whine and moan for 3 or 4 years when they disagreed with Deafread's actions or policies. They up and left and created their own blog aggregator site in a matter of months which is now in its 4th year.

There's a similar situation for vlogs as well. You have DVTV for signers which is an aggregator site for vlogs via YouTube. At one time people got upset with Tayler Mayer's (DVTV) policy regarding the ground rules on accepting vlogs and decided to create their own vlog aggregator site and the first one was ASLrocks. That attempt failed spectacularly and ASLrocks didn't even last for one year probably due to the rampant cyberbullying that went on.  Next came along Deafcube and it is still going.

Instead of complaining, go out create your own if you're not happy with Deafread. Using the strategy to try and bully Tayler Mayer into changing will not work. That tactic has obviously failed. It's better to hear from all sides than to be fed with only one viewpoint all the time.

Controlling the message...

Here's what DonG said in his YouTube comment:

Expanded close up:

 

First off, let me make this obvious to everybody. DonG makes the claim in his YouTube video comment saying that there is no background noises being heard because he said:

"...sound settings automatically turned off because I don't need sound to make my vlogs!" 

I never heard of a laptop that can turn off sound automatically but certainly it can manually be turned off.  But that doesn't matter. What we have here is that DonG is either lying or he doesn't really know that the microphone is actually turned on and assumed it was turned off when he made his video. I think it's the latter. The sound of a dish washing machine can obviously be heard with its washing sound in the background immediately once DonG shows up in his video after the intro. The washing machine sound continues throughout the whole video with an occassional sound of gurgling water from it. If that doesn't convince you perhaps this will:

At the 0:23 seconds mark he signs the word "pick" and you can hear his hand slap against his other hand.

At the 0:58 seconds mark he signs "whole" and you can hear his right hand slapping against his left hand.

At the 1:42 mark you can hear him slap his hands doing the sign for "negative."

At the 1:51 mark you can hear him slap his right hand into his left hand for the sign "identity."

Beyond the 2 minute mark you can hear him smack his lips on occassion.

At the 2:58 mark you can actually hear the washing machine go through a different washing cycle as it actually gets louder. The washing continues throughout the rest of the video.

At the 3:18 mark you can hear him when he signs "defective" (i.e. "negative" sign) against his hands.

So, what does this all mean? Well, the microphone was indeed turned on and DonG had no clue. Ask anyone who can hear.

As for the "control" response by DonG in YouTube? I'd say that Tayler Mayer is the master of that control in Deafread. Not DonG or anybody else. Besides, Tayler made it clear that Deafread wasn't meant to be a "deaf-centric" aggregator site. He made it clear in his website:

"One central reason for developing DeafRead is that Jared and I wanted to empower the deaf community; we wanted to allow everyone a voice, a place where people could speak out."

When he says "everyone" he means everyone and not just for culturally deaf people only but deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened, pre-lingual, post-lingual, CODA, AGBell supporters, Tracy Clinic supporters, AVT supporters, parents of deaf/hh children, hearing people with an interest in deafness, cochlear implant users, hearing aid users, ASL supporters, SEE supporters, Bi-Bi supporters, oral/aural supporters and so on and so forth for those people to have a voice. This includes those who are against such supports. Not a monopoly but a voice for anyone who wants to be heard. What DonG is advocating is really about monopoly and censorship control which Deafread is not about.

What is censorship?

Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous.

What is monopoly?

"exclusive possession or control"

In other words, I think this is a matter of some people who are afraid to allow the competition of ideas, arguments or commentaries and thus feel the only way to "win" is by force against Tayler's own conceptual idea of what Deafread is supposed to be all about by leaving or stopping/encouraging those from using Deafread. But one thing for sure, people will get to see less competition of ideas in Deafread's own aggregator site and those particular voices will become even more louder in Deafread.

What a bargain.

Balderdash Challenge

Ah, that word, "balderdash." Love the way it sounds. Instead of saying, "Nonsense!" one can say with a British accent by uttering the word, "Balderdash!"  I think it make conversations a bit more lively by throwing in some British words and phrases what I think is a hoot to say them.

A spot of tea, sir? No!? Well, I'm gobsmacked!

Anyway, back to my original line of thought my "Balderdash Challenge."

It's really simple and it's based on some people's anti-sentiments about my blogsite or rather more specifically about some of my blogs I've written. According to some hand-wringers' claims (see here) that my blogs are not, um, "compatible" with some of their ideological reasoning when it comes to publishing my pieces in Deafread (according to some people who commented). And my challenge to those people is simply this. Find my blogs that you think are not "compatible," make a list and explain in detail why the case. And when you do, be sure to present it somehow so the public can see it such as in your blog. Talking about it doesn't prove anything unless you have actual proof with your interpreted version on why one of my blog isn't "compatible" for Deafread. I'd say "good luck" with that endeavor otherwise it'd be all hooey on your claims of such on the effort for censorship.

Oh, one reason why I choose the word "balderdash" is because of the neat piano ragtime piece called, what else, Balderdash, written and performed by the famous, stupendously and naturally gifted ragtime pianist Tom Brier. Love to have that piano music sheet.



And, oh, don't use this video as an example against me because otherwise it'd be a bunch of, well, piffle.

Again, a spot of tea, sir?

THE VOID!! *sucking sound*

The void. It means empty. No space. A vacuum where air or gas doesn't exist like out in space. A great emptiness. Sometimes that word is used literally and at times figuratively to describe a situation, an idea, a concept, a person, a group of people, an organization, or what have you. But in vacuum there is always an opportunity to exploit the seemingly empty space. But let's take a little stroll through history first on how such a "void" or "vacuum" occurred in the Deafread aggregator site that have allowed bloggers to take advantage of less opposing bloggers.

First there was a group of Deaf people that wanted to get rid of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread in order to control views seen and heard in the Deaf community via Deafread aggregator  site beginning in 2007.

They tried that and....failed.

Another year passed and suddenly a new idea on the effort to control Deafread's content and that was to try and force Tayler Mayer to institute guidelines in DR by implementing the "a" word. And attempt to heap social guilt on him.  But Tayler realized it'd be an impossible job to enforce that concept because there is no acceptable definition and it was just a cover.

They tried that and.... failed.

So after three years of trying to control Deafread people as a last resort boycotted DR by walking out as bloggers who were once linked in the Deafread aggregator list. That action has undoubtedly left a vacuum, so to speak, in Deafread. And when that happens bloggers who have not left Deafread will get to see their own blogs become increasingly unopposed in Deafread's aggregator site. It is easier for readers to visit an aggregator site to see who is what what and to whom than to try and remember which blogger wrote what. It may look like a "void" in Deafread when the first boycott began but whenever there is a vacuum bloggers will use that to their advantage, naturally. And that is to allow Deafread to continue the linking to their blogs. This ensures that their views get to be heard more often with greater frequency. Bloggers like me and many others can see that.  So, does that mean the boycott of Deafread has failed as well? Good question. You make that call.

Now, what's next? A Deaf video anti-cyberbullying Public Announcement? It'd be great if this anti-cyberbullying video include every stripes of deaf and hard of hearing people to make that announcement by saying "Cyberbullying isn't cool." Include people from NAD, AGBell, and deaf and hard of hearing people of all stripes and backgrounds. Maybe throw in a couple of 6 year old kids with cochlear implants and have them use their cute voices and say, "Cyberbullying isn't cool!"  Include late deafened adults as well and have them speak or sign. Of course, you'd have your Deaf people signng "Cyberbullying isn't cool!" one by one as each of them speak out. The point I'm making is to have different individuals with different backgrounds stand collectively against cyberbullying over the internet. Personally, I think it'd be cute to see those kids with CI speak up and say, "Cyberbullying isn't cool!" Don't you?

Let me end my thoughts here about the void discussion.

It may seem like Deafread is "suffering" from the lack of participants but traffic to Deafread has increased by 20% over the last month, and up to 10% over the last 3 months according to Alexa's traffic stats. Which means more people still depend on Deafread to follow the latest blogs on its aggregator site. This trend will simply continue to grow after all even after all those earlier attempts at controlling Deafread's content. It's not just Deaf people who visit Deafread but the deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people who will increasingly discover and visit Deafread's site regardless of the opinions rendered by various listed blogs seen in Deafread.

Hypocrisy on the DR boycott and "avdism"?

About a year ago people decided to boycott Deafread because of Tayler's refusal to put the "A"-word in the Deafread guideline as grounds for not accepting a blog.

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.

Organizational Cyberbullying Action

What is that? "Organizational Cyberbullying Action" or OCA where groups of people band together in the effort to cyberbully people into silence. Sometimes using an organization as a front but behind the scene the bullying by leaders or members of that organization occurs. A term that Amy came up while commenting in my blog regarding use of a DBC website to harass a blogger. Although the definition of OCA was my own, not Amy's. Something that I thought was worth looking into for now.

Over the last few years or so, especially right after DPN2 protest in 2006, the use of new and colorful words were used and abused in the effort to suppress others into submission by getting bloggers and vloggers to shut up with their comments and opinions contrary to other Deaf people's views and opinions by using words against them. Words like:

Avdism. This is probably the number one word used to try and cajole and suppress other bloggers or vloggers' opinions by accusing them of practicing "avdism." This word was especially used against Tayler in the effort to control him on how Deafread and DVTV are to be operated.

Colonized/Colonialized. As in the case here seen in this screenshot where one Deaf person used a visible and well known organization's website, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, to try and bully me into submission (see story here) and create an appearance he had the backing of the DBC behind him. Incidentally, neither the Deaf person in question and especially the DBC never once made any attempt to make a formal and public apology to me. The word "colonialized" is a commonly used word against other deaf and hard of hearing people, and sometimes Deaf people. The word was conceptually derived from Paddy Ladd's book as a source of inspiration for Deaf people to use and abuse.

All these efforts at suppression seems to reek of the age old social problem of "not Deaf enough" lobbed at other Deaf people, ironically so. And if you're a Deaf person who doesn't agree with "avdism" then you are deemed as a "traitor" to the Deaf community. If your views do not jive with some Deaf people populist views then they see you as an adversary, a person who doesn't fit the mold as what a Deaf person is supposed to behave, act, and think when others see it as extremism going too far. There's common sense and then there's extremism.

Anonymous comments no longer allowed!!

I agree with what Tayler is doing. He feels he has no choice. I can imagine all the crap he had to endure seeing all those anonymous comments by deaf cowards who are a bunch of thumb-sucking anal retentative babies in the effort to demean, attack and perhaps even threaten him to some extent through anonymous commenting. Anonymous comments meant to demean and attack Tayler for what he's done with Deafread and DVTV are rather petty. Even petty still to attack him for his own personal opinions. I'd rather see a face or at least a real name to go with the comments but I still do allow anonymous comments to go through my blog today even though some of them are from those who are cowards. Still, I let them through. Normally I'd allow them to go through instead of deleting them which is a rare thing I do. At least I can have some examples of what an anonymous coward looks like in my comment sections when I do my next "Best and Worst Responses" for 2010 as I have done in 2007. My favorite comment for "Best and Worst Responses" in 2007?

“Another eye opener is the claim that 40 percent of my blogs were about him. Now, I've done 1068 blogs in over two years. If I did 40 percent, that would be 427 blogs!! LoL! The guy is really bad at math.”

Yeah, not only delusional but really, really bad at math.

Heh.

Enemies of Choices

There is a recurring yet common theme I keep seeing in some segments of the Deaf community and that is the constant attempts to restrict choices whether it's choices on communication options or about competitions or of ideas.

Let's begin with Deafread, a blog and vlog aggregator site.

In the beginning many liked what Deafread was doing. So did the people who linked their cochlear implant, AVT, oral/aural blogs and by bloggers who may be critical about some ideas or people in the Deaf community. This was soon met with a gradual backlash by some segments of the Deaf community believing it was time that Deafread needed to refuse blog links on those very subjects. Deafread refused and believe that readers have the right to choose their own subjects or topics for their reading pleasure. It is an aggregator site.

Let's look at DVTV, a mostly signing vlog aggregator website.

In the beginning many liked what DVTV was doing. So did the people who did their videos on many subjects even by some vloggers who may have been critical about some components of the Deaf community. This, too, was soon met with a gradual backlash by some segments of the Deaf community believing it was time that Deafread needed to be shutdown over certain controversies. DVTV didn't bow to their demands. Viewers and participants have the right to choose their subjects for their viewing pleasure.

Let's look at the recent AB2072 bill controversy. It was a bill about choices where ASL was quickly amended to this bill along with many other communication options to help make available to parents of children with hearing loss so they can make an informed decision. But many Deaf people were against this bill outright. Many Deaf people were in favor of the concept of that bill and supported it. And many Deaf people were against it unless amended to their satisfaction.

Promoting Veditz's 1913 speech.

Veditz at the time was for the preservation of sign language (ASL, BSL, etc). His support for it was valid at the time. But today's technology makes a huge impact on communication choices and how it has fostered competition over ideas. Over time the educational component improved in its understanding on what works effectively and in what particular environment for a child with hearing loss. Just as well over time we saw information on these communication and educational options become increasingly available and easy to access over the internet. Compare this electronic access to information of today to parents of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and even into the 1990s who had to struggle to get their needed information and the people they needed to contact in regard to their child with a hearing loss.

Using Veditz's "enemy" speech is an outdated attempt to try and squelch choices and competition. An attempt to try and squelch other hearing loss support organizations that may be more favorable to other communication or educational options. What people tend to forget is that parents of children with hearing loss have the trump card. It is they who have the duty and right to make an informed choice on the decision for communication and/or educational options. The decision does NOT belong to any one deaf/hh or Deaf organizations or groups of people. The child belongs to the parents.

Veditz lived in a time when there were NO form of technology that can help with the communication and educational components for people with hearing loss. It made great sense at the time about sign language since technology simply did not exist. Yet, sign language is still valuable today. However, using Veditz's speech today in the attempt to call out other hearing loss organizations as their "enemies" will simply not work. Why?

1) It's because of our improving technology and greater understanding on the educational component for children with hearing loss.

2) Secondly, it will not work because doing so make them look like an extremist group who are against choices, competition, and the free exchange of ideas.

3) And thirdly, there is no one size shoe fits all for all children and adults with hearing loss.

This is all about choices.

There is so much what technology has to offer for people with hearing loss and understanding that it is technology that ensures choices will remain on the table and not be restricted by any one hearing loss organization or culture group.

Compared to 15 to 20 years ago what we have now we didn’t have then or the improvement we have now. It might seem snail pace but if you put everything together there has been leaps and bounds on the improvements in communication and technology in virtually in all areas.

*Internet relay service
*Automatic transcriptioning of videos on YouTube (accuracy varies)
*Video phone
*CART
*Communication Devices (UbiDuo)
*Enabled smartphones for people with hearing loss
*Video relay service via smartphones
*Instant Messaging (AIM, Yahoo, MSN, etc)
*Real time texting, simultaneous communication via smartphones (UbiVia)
*Email
*Movie theater captioning
*DVD/CD/Tape movie CC
*Real time human captioning
*Free subtitling/captioning software
*Digital hearing aids
*Cochlear implants
*Blogging
*Vlogging
*Internet video captioning (e.g. Project ReadOn)
*Automatic real time captioning (non-human, continues to improve)
*Core computer chips by improving efficiency, speed and performance where we go from dual core chips, to quad, to 16 core, to 32 to soon in a few years a several thousand core chip that will help in the area of communication including ASL recognition software (ASL to voice, ASL to text, text to voice, voice to ASL, Voice to text, voice to translated voice and so on).

The United States is the most technologically advanced along with vast support in the social services on providing the most communication access and choices for people who are deaf and hard and hearing. In fact, we are the most "spoiled" bunch of people in the world in that respect but at the same time we continue to bethe proving grounds for the world to see on technological advancements for people with hearing loss.

Choices. It continues to grow. Technology will ensure that.

The Candy exposure.....the meltdown.

Well, after going back to see what's the heck is going on to take a second look about this whole Candy blogger affair I still find it all a bit comical and laughable in some instances. I barely remember coming across her original blogsite a few years ago. And then when she transferred over to a different blog with the name "Candy" she seemed to have exploded out of nowhere this year. And that's a good thing because that means more people are reading her blogs. And it certainly got some people to notice her a little bit too deeply. Anonymity as a blogger is a big part of the blogosphere. Not everybody wants to divulge their identity. But to do so on in an even smaller blogosphere called the Deaf blogosphere via Deafread is an entirely different set of environment.

Candy will not stop blogging just because a few people have personal grudges against her because of what she said in the past. I admire her and her informative blogging style. From her blogs and comments elsewhere I've not found anything offensive according to some people who claimed to be offended by her comments. Where? I think some Deaf people are offended by her because of her opinions and information about the recent AB2072 meltdown. And perhaps many felt that she was taking the limelight away from protesters of AB2072? Who knows.

Candy has a right as anybody else to blog her opinions on her blogsite. Bloggers do have the right to be anonymous. There are personal reasons for doing so. Outing her might seem "victorious" to a few people but I'm betting that the majority of readers find it a petty exercise. I think the real meltdown isn't Candy's own but somebody else. I believe she will continue as who she is. Her strong sense of character should attest to that.

Candy, welcome to THIS side of the blogosphere.