Switched at Birth petition controversy re-visited

Last year in March I covered a petition that was against the show "Switched at Birth" simply because some of the cast of characters weren't "Deaf enough." That is not enough deaf people (as opposed to hard of hearing) who are native signers. The petition provided insight to the amount of shallowness and cruelty considering the fact that the show's main cast of characters have more culturally deaf characters who are native signers and more hearing characters who pick up sign language for the benefit of their deaf sibling, deaf child or deaf friend (such as the hearing character, Bay, who was dating Emmet) than there are hearing characters who do not know sign language. The show is actually a great example of what diversity is like among the main cast of characters who are culturally deaf, hard of hearing, hearing, signers and non-signers. You can thank Marlee Matlin for that.

She also pointed out that until recently, deaf characters were generally a guest role written in to just a handful of episodes at best. She credits Marlee Matlin, who plays a mother of Daphne's friend, making a difference, saying, "[She] really did an incredible job of paving the way for deaf actors." 

But she noted that "Switched at Birth" has taken the progress one step further. "You get four characters with hearing loss, and different ranges of hearing loss, and it really accurately represents the culture, the issues within the culture, and the way people feel about the culture."

You have three main characters who commonly appear on the show who are culturally deaf and they are Emmet (Sean Berdy), Travis (Ryan Lane), and Melody (Marlee Matlin).  The other deaf/hh (main) character is Daphne (Katie LeClerc) whose grew up speaking and listening as a hard of hearing person that wears a hearing aid and knows sign language. Whenever deaf characters speak to each other the audio is edited to remove all background noise except for ambient noise. This allow viewers to focus on the visual emotions and physical nature of sign language while at the same time provide a perspective of what it is like to be deaf and not hear sound around them.

Rob Nielson, a  Deaf ASL teacher in Texas, was the original author of a petition (with a paltry 100 signatures) against the show reasoning that the show isn't suitable to be shown on the ABC Family channel tv show because

"the main Deaf character isn't even Deaf and a so-called "family channel" is resorting to scenes of drug use, sexual innuendos, and in a recent episode, gratuitous teen sex."

Yet in the petition it was made more abundantly clear it was more about the main character (Daphne) wasn't "Deaf enough" for Rob and his students.

ABC Family first dropped the ball by hiring an actress who is not Deaf. Katie Leclerc is an actress that only recently started losing some of her hearing due to Meniere's Disease. The only reason she knew any ASL before the show was because she took it in high school and that was because, In her own words, "I was very bad at Spanish." Leclerc has to take voice lessons in order to "sound Deaf" on the show. Leclerc portrays herself as an ambassador of the Deaf community - "I feel comfortable in the deaf world I feel comfortable in the hearing world," Leclerc said. "I'm glad I can cross over." - There is no crossing over. She is a hearing person that is playing the part of a Deaf character. She is not a part of the Deaf world. Thus, some of the things about her character are not things that are normal for a Deaf person who grew up in the Deaf world - such as her ability to lipread flawlessly, her constant sim-com (talking and signing at the same time), and her signing being jerky and awkward at times. There are many talented and beautiful culturally Deaf actresses that ABC Family could have hired.

The part about that Katie LeClerc is a hearing person is absolutely false.

Katie Leclerc is hard of hearing in real life
Playing a deaf girl comes more naturally to Leclerc than it would to most actors because she has first hand knowledge of what it's like to live with hearing loss. At the age of 20 the actress was diagnosed with Ménière's disease. She explained the affliction, "[It's] a problem with fluid retention in the inner ear. You get fluctuating hearing loss, attacks of vertigo, ringing in the ear, and pressure in the ear. So it is a very sporadic disorder. The attacks come and go as they please with no rhyme or reason."

And although the condition sometimes makes it difficult for Leclerc to work, she never loses sight of the important role hearing loss has had for her as an actress. "Without the Ménière's disease, I would not be able to play the role of Daphne. In the deaf community, in order to play a role of someone with a hearing loss… you have to have hearing loss. So without this Ménière's disease, I wouldn't be able to have this dream come true, this role of a lifetime, this incredible opportunity."

She found out she has Meniere's Disease at 20 years old that explained her losing her hearing which gets progressively worse as she gets older. Katie LeClerc made clear that she is in fact a hard of hearing person, and not a hearing person that Rob is claiming.  She made no claims of being an "ambassador of the Deaf community," either.  That was Rob Nielson's doing by turning it into a something else to suit his own agenda (of insecurity).

According to Don Grushkin and other culturally deaf people they would agree that Katie LeClerc is a Deaf person (go here and here to see why) with "Deaf" to mean an all-inclusive word. But according to Rob Nielson he is basically saying that Katie LeClerc's character, Daphne, is not "Deaf enough" solely on the basis that the character does not behave like some culturally deaf, native signer as clarified in Rob's petition.

She is a hearing person that is playing the part of a Deaf character. She is not a part of the Deaf world. Thus, some of the things about her character are not things that are normal for a Deaf person who grew up in the Deaf world - such as her ability to lipread flawlessly, her constant sim-com (talking and signing at the same time), and her signing being jerky and awkward at times. There are many talented and beautiful culturally Deaf actresses that ABC Family could have hired.

Which is it, Rob? Accept a deaf/hh character (or for that matter in real life a deaf/hh person) for who he/she is or get nit-picky because the character doesn't sign flawlessly or smoothly enough for you? On the show you have three characters who sign "flawlessly" that fits Rob's ideal world and you have one hard of hearing character who does her best at signing to communicate yet her signing does not fit Rob's level of signing proficiency because, ya know, she's all jerky and stuff.

Again, Katie LeClerc is most definitely NOT a hearing person but hard of hearing.

Maybe it's time Rob, the "Deaf ASL teacher of Texas," the fair and "open-minded one," should publicly apologize for saying that Katie LeClerc is not a deaf/hh person and that her character is not "Deaf enough" because she's not like Marlee Matlin who can sign "flawlessly"?

This is deaf identity politics at its worse. That kind of ugly discrimination need to stop.

Oral only are now officially Deaf by Humphries and Padden

The "Redeafined" blog is one of the few blogs and people out there using the capitalized "D" in "Deaf" to not mean as an inclusive group for all deaf and hard of hearing people - an attempt at a new ideology, or in this case moving the goal post, on what "Deaf" today supposed to mean in place of deaf and hard of hearing. I explained earlier in my recent blog on how that example of using "Deaf" is set to fail because of the confusing message and meaning behind it will simply be lost with the rest of the population of people with hearing loss.

Simply put, it won't work.

JPR said it well in one of my blog about this very same subject:

I shake my head at the ideology that Dr. Donald Grushkin exhibits. It is his business to think whatever he wants (the First Amendment is intact, last time I checked) but the ideology will not be helpful at all. It fails to recognize the pluralism and the huge diversity in the deaf population as you described. It is offensive to many deaf people who do not identify themselves as members of the Deaf culture when the proponents of the ideology insist that they must be Deaf. Have the proponents learned anything from the history? The U.S. attempted to impose the idea of Melting Pot on the immigrants but it did not succeed. Instead, the immigrants still retained their identities that they acquired from their native countries or cultures. Saying that all deaf people are Deaf is like trying to impose Melting Pot on them. It is not going to work, as you said.

Indeed. it won't work because people have their own identities and how they are comfortable with it. You cannot force an ideology on other deaf and hard of hearing people's own identities in the name of collectivism and unity.

JPR continues:

I have to wonder why some people are promoting the ideology of applying the cultural identity of Deaf to all deaf people in spite of the reality. Is it because they want to build the Deaf Ethnos? Is it because they fear that the technology of cochlear implant and medical technologies are changing the landscape of the Deaf culture? Is it because they want to build Deaf Utopia where unity and single identity (read: collectivism) are required? I will wait and see what true colors they are showing over the time.

I explained in response to JPR's comment that a "Deaf utopia" doesn't exist in the sense of "deaf and hard of hearing utopia" when taken on with the new meaning and definition of "Deaf."

Is Gallaudet University is an utopian example? In what way? Socially? Technologically? hierarchically? It may be an ideal place to go for a variety of reasons but the problem is you have deaf and hh people at Gallaudet University that make up 95 to 97% of the campus population. That kind of tight social fitting cannot be done at that level once you leave the gates of Gallaudet University. You become 0.2% (0.002) of the total population in the United States. The only way to achieve something close to that of Gallaudet University if you live in large enough cities (e.g. Rochester, NY; and perhaps in some surrounding communities of Washington D.C., etc) that have large clusters of culturally deaf people in their area. That's not utopia, neither is Gallaudet University's example. Rather it's an example of isolationism by mixing with your own kind and very little to do with hearing people.

All black universities are not examples of an utopian campus. Ideal perhaps but not utopian because they've become isolated with their "own kinds." An utopian society would be more liken where members are able interact with each other across culturally and linguistically. For that to happen technology will be key in helping bridge that communication gap where it becomes 2nd nature to communicate with anyone regardless of mode of communication or language used.  (In reality) we'll be more likely to segregrate ourselves withn our "own kinds" than to mix and interact with those not of "our kinds." Just our basic human nature that we do this. Nothing utopian about it no matter how much fantasy you can throw it to other people.
 

So, the "reDeafination" use of "Deaf" will not confuse the message, the meaning and definition as established by Humphries and Padden back in 1988.  We have deaf and hard of hearing communities, not a Deaf community because a Deaf community means a culturally deaf community and not of those who are hard of hearing who are fine with speaking and listening, oral users, S.E.E. users, CUED speech users, deaf AGBell members, and anybody with a hearing loss who isn't a culturally deaf person. I can imagine the utter ridiculousness in trying to convince a person who has a high frequency hearing loss but has mild hearing loss ("late deafened") that he is a Deaf person.

No. It won't work. Still kind of incredible that people are willing to shove some three decades of the definition brought forth by Humphries and Padden in 1988 (as seen proudly in NAD's explaination) down the drain. If they weren't dead already they'd be rolling in their graves.

Why "Deaf" (big D) for all with hearing loss won't work

I want to add more on what I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.

First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.

Who to blame? Well, we all know who.

Secondly, in the Google search you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf."  In an ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf.  In other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the glossary of disability groups or organizations.  Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf.  That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as NIH.  And the examples go on and on.

The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.

The divisiveness will continue.

That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.

The old CAD Bylaws in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "Deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.

Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years.

But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language. Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.

Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.

Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people.   They already developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.

Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation. 

Don Grushkin on what you said about the d/D as being divisive.

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work. You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.

Good luck on undoing all that.
 

AGBell members are now officially Deaf people

Recently Don Grushkin made an opinion regarding the use of the capitalized "d" for the word "deaf" to mean an all inclusive definition:

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews. 

 Since I'm persona non grata over at Deaf Echo I will as usual make my responses here and write my opinions on what Don Grushkin said. I will disagree with his attempt to move the goal post on what "D"eaf is to mean nowadays.

Noticeably over the past few years a few notable people in the culturally deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people and this was explained by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) on the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.

Granted. The culturally deaf community was able to grant their own exclusive right to capitalize the letter 'd' in "deaf" to mean one thing and one thing only as exactly as what Carol Padden and Tom Humphries pointed out.  And become members of an exclusive heritage group or so they say. Otherwise by not accepting the very definition set forth almost 30 years ago by Padden and Humphries would mean it could no longer to specifically mean culturally deaf people. It would simply become a generic brand with no identification on culture and language (ASL) that ties itself to a specific heritage group. In fact, that very act would devalue the very word "Deaf" away from the culturally deaf community and disappears altogether with no identity at all. AGBell members who are deaf or hard of hearing who do not know a lick of sign language are now defacto Deaf people. No need to focus on ASL, deaf culture, culturally heritage and language. All that would be rather strange if not outright blasphemous to a lot of culturally deaf people and of all things coming from a guy who is helping run Deafhood Foundation.  Funny how one thinks that by saying deaf/Deaf is "divisive" yet there were ASL-only Deafhood workshops (here, too). So much for the concept of including everybody this "Deaf" idea of Don Grushkin's.

Another thing, there is no common ethnicity that ALL deaf and hard of hearing people share regarding their physical trait on hearing loss.  Ethnic means that a group of people either share a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. Nothing about hearing loss which is a physical trait. The only commonality here we all share is hearing loss whether it is bilateral or unilateral. Whether born with it or acquired hearing loss later in life. And that communication access, as it varies from one person with a hearing loss to another, is the other commonality amongst them as well. Some struggle more than others. Some are fine with it. Some do not have the need to sign while others do require sign language to communicate.

What has been divisive is some of the nonsense deaf politics that have been going on for years rather than over two simple words, deaf and Deaf. There are two groups. The culturally deaf group and the not culturally deaf group. You have hard of hearing, deaf, and culturally deaf. And that's a fact of life.

Do Not Watch This Video

Click on YouTube for more information. You'll see.

Message to Don Grushkin

My video message to Don Grushkin on his recent PSE and ASL vlog discussion about Candy's blogsite, and going after Candy about her blog about the ASL language question issue.

Grushkin and his vlogs, cyberbullying and the outing of Candy

There seems to be a perception issue that I was constantly bringing up my Monopoly money gag that Grushkin (or "Don G.") apparently missed. In Grushkin's infinite wisdom he had the audacity to wade into all this with his constant complaints.  And so allow me to establish a time line and links to where and the number of times I brought up the Monopoly gag versus Grushkin's claim of "many, many times." 

On June 5th, 2010, I made a gag blog about (fake) money that was donated to FB's "Deafhood? No Thanks!" which is an ad hoc "organization" by which Grushkin replied in my comment section that started it all:

I think it's sad someone is donating such a large sum of money to a group that is about doing nothing instead of to a group that is about doing SOMETHING.

Four days later seemingly upset or mad he made a vlog on June 9th "Where is our money going?" raising a ruckus about why $656 (of fake Monopoly money) was going to an "unworthy" organization and how dare they use "our" money for that (Whose money again?? "Our"? Quite presumptuous, ain't it?) so-called organization.  Note the emphasis on "our money."  A rather arrogant thing to do by going around telling people how the donated money belong to their organization and to no one else. Because it's "our money!"  What an arrogant piece.

This prompted me to make a vlog/blog "A Critical Analysis" on that same day to clarify that the donation was fake in the first place, obviously so if one had paid careful attention to it. I also posted a link to my blog in "Deafhood? No Thanks!" Facebook site where people laughed and made their comments known there for next few days.

The next time I brought up the Monopoly money gag in Facebook was on June 29, 2010 and again here that same day. And that was basically the end of it. We all had our fun.

And then a long lull began after that. 

On August 29 I made a blog "Incredible Hulk Character equals Oppression to Deaf?" about Grushkin's Hulk vlog who claimed the Hulk's example was avdism. I basically laughed at that idea and in my comment section is where he made his first "intellectual" jab at me.

I'm sorry your intelligence and vision are too limited to see the big picture and contemplate alternate possibilities.

And in that same thread I responded as a reminder to him seen at the end of my comment:

Hey, we can play this "  intelligence"   game any time you want. The only problem is you actually brought it up.

Just a little reminder for the guy.

The lull continued.

And then on Sept 13th I did a blog ("My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands*") and in the comment section I responded to White Ghost's comment about a satire which reminded me of my Monopoly money satire saying it was the best one I did.

WG,

Well, yeah, still I think my Monopoly money blog satire was the best one yet. Too bad it took a video for me to do and explain to those who actually believed that money took place in the fake donation effort to the "Deafhood? No Thanks" group.

And sure enough, Grushkin was watching like a hawk and he complained again about my repeating his Monopoly money mistake in that same thread just below WG's comment:

Instead, you have shown a mean streak a half-mile wide (I won't give you a full mile, because that's reserved for another of your cronies, who truly deserves not to be named, who has actively sought the destruction of our community and unity). Why do I say "mean streak"? Just look at your obsession over my lack of care in reading your "monopoly"  blog. Instead of realizing that maybe I am human and did not read carefully all the way through, (and I DID leave you a comment to that regard, but you chose to delete it) you have instead chosen to continue to mock me at every turn with that. I, on the other hand, chose to ignore you, because ultimately, it is really a minor mistake on my part, but that mean streak of yours attempted to blow it up into an indictment of my intelligence and whatever else you decided to do with it. If you did not have a mean streak, you would have had your fun and left it alone. You did not.

My obsession? I only brought it up once in a response to White Ghost's comment almost 3 months later after the last time I brought it up. Yet, Grushkin was so insecure about his own embarrassing Monopoly money gaffe all of sudden he sees my bringing up the Monopoly money fiasco one more time almost 3 months later as the equivalent of being "obsessed." Also, as a side note as seen in the Grushkin's comment above, I've not deleted any of Grushkin's comment in my blogs though I'm not sure which blog of mine he's referring to. Sometimes comments do go into my spam folder for some odd reason. I have explained this before. I do not always notice the spam flag right away and I do "unspam" them recognizing those as legitimate comments whenever I notice the spam flag. On occasion I do get spams. I believe I did ask Grushkin to resend his comment again. Not sure at this point I'm pretty darn sure I did somewhere. Maybe he thought I deleted his comment when in fact it wasn't approved yet until I returned home or had not gotten around to approving his comment until much later? I don't delete comments unless they violate one of my rules.

On September 27 I did a blog "Fried brains and yummy desserts"  about trying to appear "academic" while touching briefly about the Monopoly gag to make a point. I hadn't brought this up gag again for almost a month later on October 23 after Grushkin made his zombie video about me on October 22.

Meanwhile from September to November on Grushkin's YouTube vlog site he seem to have lost it by making a spate of videos about me indirectly or directly on September 3 ("We're just expressing our opinion!"), September 13 ("Mike McConnell's Kangaroo Court"), September 17 ("'Go to Hell, Nattering Nabobs!'?"), September 19 ("You may be addicted to v/blogging if...."), and October 8 ("A new word and sign for blogging behavior!"). Funnily enough, he did say that he chose to ignore me starting on September 13.

And then on October 22 Grushkin tried to do his coupe de grace stab at me in his Halloween satire piece about me as "Kokonut" as having "no brains" with a video titled "A Deaf zombie wanders in cyberspace" with him playing the hapless and wondering "Deaf zombie." I can only surmise that he got his zombie inspiration from an earlier blog I did on October 19 ("Zombieland!"). Coincidence? I think not. Besides, who were those so-called "brainy" people in his video satire?

Remember what I said earlier that if he continues with the intelligence jab then he should expect a response from me in kind?  I did exactly that on October 23, 2010 I did a video piece called "Zombie Monopoly" in honor of his October 22, 2010 zombie video.

Satire is met with another satire. Not bullying but....satire. Get with the program, folks.

Though not surprising, two weeks later, on November 6 in Candy's own blog Grushkin continued to complain by commenting on what I did in making my Zombie Monopoly video "bordered on cyberbullying."  And quickly on that same day, November 6th ("For xxxx xxxxxx, AKA "Candy", on Cyberbullying") he did a YouTube vlog to complain once again this whole Monopoly affair by calling it a "borderline" cyberbullying example. He said so with a straight face while using Candy's real name and not her pseudo or anonymous name  "Candy." He attacked Candy about my Monopoly money satire only because she thought it was funny and a hoot. But here's a quick little history for the readers. This blogger "Candy" was outed by a surreptitious group of Deaf people who identified her by publicly announcing her real name even though she used a pseudo name as a security precaution whenever she blogged.  Once her real name was outed several Deaf people contacted her employer in the effort to get her into trouble.

Now, back on track.

What I'm demonstrating here is that Don Grushkin was the one who continued to bring up the whole Monopoly affair again and again saying that I referred to his Monopoly money faux pas "many, many, many times." He said this in his November 6 vlog and in Candy's blog on November 6. In actuality I brought up perhaps 4 or 5 times over the course of 4 months from July to October this Monopoly gag thing and not the "many, many times" he so tried to claim as happened.  

In my opinion, Grushkin's own zombie video about my intelligence wasn't a cyberbullying vlog. Even though, ironically so, he called my own "Zombie Monopoly" video as "border line" cyberbullying in his November 6 response as seen in Candy's blog.  My video was purely satirical in nature. A bit fun just as Grushkin had his fun playing the hapless Deaf zombie in his attempt to poke fun at my intelligence as a retaliation effort.  He simply found a way to vent his anger over his own misconceptions by claiming that I was bringing up his Monopoly money gaffe repeatedly and obsessively, at every turn making it sound like it was a daily occurrence. As you can see here the time line I constructed with the links to where and when I brought up his Monopoly money gaffe, you can see that I brought up the gaffe a few times and not the "many, many times" as Grushkin's tried to characterize it as.

Those are the facts.

Grushkin's own action and continual complaints are an indictment to his own intellectual insecurity.  His own PhD can't save him from it. My time line describes exactly how things went with links and dates. This will be used as a future reference for others to see and set the record straight. Everything's here as best as I could document them. I'm not bashful about it. And I certainly am not going to constantly squeal like a stuck pig over something I don't like.