Here are the confirmed words that earned me a 30-day ban, words that I wrote verbatim in my posted response to that story of which my comment has long since been deleted:
Ok. Baby born with no cochlea or no ears. Would that be a sad story, too?And yet moderator(s) claimed that my comment, in some odd way, degrades and reduces the morale of deaf/blind contributors but without explaining why or how. Judge, jury, executioner.
But I was not offered a chance to point out the irony of this story in a popular Deaf forum. My post about supposing a baby born without cochleas or ears was my way of driving a point on the hypocrisy between a baby born without eyes vs a baby born without cochleas (e.g. born deaf) when deafness of a baby would've celebrated by many Deaf people. But certainly not about a baby without eyes which pity and sorrow was shown by some Deaf people. My comment wasn't to entice but it was for me to point out and for me to understand on why the double standards in all this. But I was not offered a defense or the chance to explain or clarify. Judge, jury, executioner.
I suspect ban was the result of a complaint(s) from someone or people who have an ax to grind rather than to simply ask for clarification but instead assumed the worse. This is a problem when one is a jury, judge and executioner, and listens to only one side. It's exactly like the whole audism spiel where Deaf people shoot first, ask questions later killing the poor monkey seen in the cartoon thinking it to be a runaway "audist."
In fact, it'd be horrifying for any hearing parents to suddenly find their own child born deaf or blind. I would be, too. But you make the best of it and give the child lots of love and a good upstart in life.
All in all, you might think that by looking across what it appears to be a wide expanse of fresh, clean grasses waving in the wind in an open field but then realize to your dismay upon closer inspection it's a horse field full of manure.
