James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (02/21/91)
Index Number: 13697
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
The sign language that is truly the one that belongs toteh deaf is
ASL. It has dialects tobe sure but any ASL user from anywhere in America
can understand another ASL'er with very little difficulty. Every once
in a while, an unfamiliar sign may show up. Usually it needs explanation
only once. Indeed, ASL'ers and FSL'er (French Sign Language users)
are able to hold a fairly decent conversation because FSL is the mother
of ASL.
When "deaf" signers ger together and havethe difficulty you described
in your post to Anne Stalkner, itis usually because they arre not ASL'ers
but deaf people who have been indoctrinated in some MCE (manually coded
English) method or another. MCE whether you cann it Signed Englsih,
SEE 1 or SEE 2 etc. is not a true language in and of itself. Moreover,
a truly deaf person never really masters English on thelevel a hearing
person does it he or she is born deaf or deaf froma very early age.
The reason is that English is a phonetic language. The deaf person
(God, how many times will I say this?) cannot hear it. You can speak
it, signit, write it, lipread it all you want and you are simply not
ve
going to infuse the level of mastery a native or hearing speaker achieves
with English by virtue of deafness itself. So when you have a bunch
of deaf people who are indoctrinated with MCE together, you are seeing
a pseudo language created by hearing people and not wholly comprehended
by deaf people. You get the kind of confusion and miscommunication
you mention-everybody saying "What?" This is a hearing creation. You
don't get that with ASL users at least not on the level you mention.
With hearing people too, you may have a person who speaks a dialect
of Englsih taht may force you from time to time you say things like,
"Excuse me." "Come again?" What did you say?" It is no less true with
signers of ASL. Once in a while, a word (or sign) may throw you off.
But only because of your personal lack of familairity with the way
it is spoken (signed). The confusion you mentioned is typical of artificial
communication methods but not with true languages used by the people
whose language it is. And thatis why deaf people as a whole so resist
the Babylon of hearing created sign methods such as SEE, L O V E, Signed
English and their ilk.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (02/28/91)
Index Number: 13720
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
The sign language that is truly the one that belongs toteh deaf is
ASL. It has dialects tobe sure but any ASL user from anywhere in America
can understand another ASL'er with very little difficulty. Every once
in a while, an unfamiliar sign may show up. Usually it needs explanation
only once. Indeed, ASL'ers and FSL'er (French Sign Language users)
are able to hold a fairly decent conversation because FSL is the mother
of ASL.
When "deaf" signers ger together and havethe difficulty you described
in your post to Anne Stalkner, itis usually because they arre not ASL'ers
but deaf people who have been indoctrinated in some MCE (manually coded
English) method or another. MCE whether you cann it Signed Englsih,
SEE 1 or SEE 2 etc. is not a true language in and of itself. Moreover,
a truly deaf person never really masters English on thelevel a hearing
person does it he or she is born deaf or deaf froma very early age.
The reason is that English is a phonetic language. The deaf person
(God, how many times will I say this?) cannot hear it. You can speak
it, signit, write it, lipread it all you want and you are simply not
ve
going to infuse the level of mastery a native or hearing speaker achieves
with English by virtue of deafness itself. So when you have a bunch
of deaf people who are indoctrinated with MCE together, you are seeing
a pseudo language created by hearing people and not wholly comprehended
by deaf people. You get the kind of confusion and miscommunication
you mention-everybody saying "What?" This is a hearing creation. You
don't get that with ASL users at least not on the level you mention.
With hearing people too, you may have a person who speaks a dialect
of Englsih taht may force you from time to time you say things like,
"Excuse me." "Come again?" What did you say?" It is no less true with
signers of ASL. Once in a while, a word (or sign) may throw you off.
But only because of your personal lack of familairity with the way
it is spoken (signed). The confusion you mentioned is typical of artificial
communication methods but not with true languages used by the people
whose language it is. And thatis why deaf people as a whole so resist
the Babylon of hearing created sign methods such as SEE, L O V E, Signed
English and their ilk.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe) (02/28/91)
Index Number: 13722
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
JW> Moreover, a truly deaf person never really masters English
JW> on the level a hearing person does if he or she is born
JW> deaf or deaf from a very early age.
James, your statement is simply NOT supported by the facts.
Examples abound of congenitally deaf or prelingually deafened
people who have a better command of the english language than the
average hearing person. One does not have to look any farther
than a co-moderator of this echo to find an example of this.
I have another friend who is the 5th generation of congenital
profound deafness in his family. He hears absolutely nothing.
Yet he has an excellent command of english, better than yours
and mine. There are prelingually deafened people who earn their
living as authors and editors. Do you seriously expect anyone
to believe you when you contend that they "never really master
english on the level of a hearing person"?
Many deaf people can do anything with english except hear it!
I believe that a sound case can be made for ASL on its merits.
One does not need to resort to misrepresentations of facts and
denigration of other signing systems to justify ASL. You serve
both deaf people and ASL quite poorly when you do this.
Jack.
... Xpress Yourself!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.orgLana.Berrington@f424.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Lana Berrington) (02/28/91)
Index Number: 13729
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Howdy Jack!
In a message of <06 Feb 91>, Jack O'keeffe (1:129/26.0) writes:
JW>> Moreover, a truly deaf person never really masters English
JW>> on the level a hearing person does if he or she is born
JW>> deaf or deaf from a very early age.
JO>> James, your statement is simply NOT supported by the facts.
JO>> Many deaf people can do anything with english except hear it!
Hey, yeah! My sign language instructor is profoundly deaf yet
aparently thanks to lots of work every day by her and her mother
she speaks REALLY good english. The only words she has trouble
with are ones that are from other languages like "jalapinio
peppers" or some of the french words that are used commonly.
It's really hard sometimes.. because you forget that you need to
sign back to her when you're having a conversation after class. :-)
<*Lana*> ~
=====
Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.
# Origin: The Point Of No Return (201:5500/55.4)
To respond netmail, use FSC-0038 DOMAIN lines or as 1st line of msg use:
@DOMAIN METRONET 201:5500/55.4 <your address: domain z:n/n>
=== FNPGate 2.50 Release
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!104!424!Lana.Berrington
Internet: Lana.Berrington@f424.n104.z1.fidonet.orgJay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Croft) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13731
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
I agree with you about the ability of a prelingually deaf person being
able to master the English language. My wife, born deaf, has no trouble
with it, and she is a doctoral student.
But I think in your message you were equating mastery of the language
with speaking it. Speaking is only one aspect of language. What about
reading and writing?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Jay.Croft
Internet: Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgFrank.Hicinbothem@f501.n202.z1.fidonet.org (Frank Hicinbothem) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13732 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > Moreover, a truly deaf person never really masters English > on thelevel a hearing person does it he or she is born deaf > or deaf froma very early age. What utter nonsense. The world is full of deaf people who can use English as well as any hearing person can. The only difference is that the deaf person's ears can't hear the spoken sounds. I can't begin to count the number of writers, editors, publishers, software authors, and other wordsmiths who happen to be congenitally deaf. And I don't even like to think how many hearing people can't construct a simple sentence. A person's ability to use any language is a matter of education and attitude, and does not depend on their physical limitations. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!202!501!Frank.Hicinbothem Internet: Frank.Hicinbothem@f501.n202.z1.fidonet.org
James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13735
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Lana, speaking really good English is not the same thing as masteringthe
language. As for my statement that many or most deaf people willnever
master English to thelevel of the average hearing person, research
upholds this. So does common sense. Non-native speakers of any, I repeat,
ANY language, onthe average never masterthe language to the extent
that a native speaker does. With the deaf, this is especially so.
Pretty good English? By whose account? The speech therapist? Family
and close friends? Let me tell you, these well-meaning people tell
us deafies, "You speak so well." Then we go out inthe world and people
look at us funny when we speak. Recenlt, alady raised orally and considered
hard of hearing spkoe to my school. She bitterly told how she was always
told she spoke good English. Even thather voice was like a normal hearing
person's. While in the university, she learned that many simply had
to make an effort to understand her most of the time. She used their
audiology facility and personnel to get an honest appraisal of her
speech skills. They told her that people accustomed to "deaf" speech
would understand her but most other people probably would have difficulty.
So, by whose account does the person youmention speak "pretty good
English?"
I don't mean to sound pessimistic or like I am attacking, so please
don't take it that way. I am kind of miffed that there just seems to
be a flat refusal by thehearing dominated deaf educationprofession
that the deaf are deaf. You can trytraining us to be hearing all you
want and we willstill be deaf with allthat goes with being deaf.
I am not anti-English or anti-speech. I am against the continued refusal
to put an end to wasting so many deaf people's lives withthis darn
English only approachthat has 200 years of failure behind it. I am
also perplexed as to why there seems to be so much resistance to giving
ASL as a first language upon which to teach the second language English
a chance. If it does not work, willit makethat much of a difference?
No it won't. It would simply leave us where we were before. All the
other hock-eyed methods have been used to no benefit for the majority
of deaf people, so why not give ASL its chance? More to the point,
why is it that so many oral deafies revert to ASL after leaving school
and coming in contact with other deaf people? Because they realize
that they are home. At long last. Unfortunately, so much time has been
lost that being home isn't as productive as it could be otherwise.
Mainly, they instinctly realize they are exposed to a language that
IS NATURAL to them as deaf people. Would to God that I could videotape
all these oral people I meet at PCC and the UA so you could all see
the joy of self-discovery when they come among other deafies, the bitterness
as they learn from experience or their own reading,or listening to
others' accounts and realize how they have been denied (unintentionally
i insist on believing) fulfillment, education, knowledge etc. So many
of them and I am in this little locationof Tucson which is outof themainstream
of a lot of things in America. Yet many come from out of state. It
would move you to tears. But to joy too when you see the self-discovery
and their sudden awareness as they shrug off the shackles of hearized
deafness and dive into being who and what they really are. Do they
abandon English? No. Speech-usually not. Then what? They stop using
it artificially and start to try to master ASL and take classes or
self-teachthemslves English as a second language. Just wish you could
see it intheprocess as I do,
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13742
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
If you read my post with care, I believe you will find the reasons
I made my statement. On the average, a deaf person much like any non-native
user of English does not master it quite as well as the average native
user. This does not put down deaf ability-I am Deaf myself- it is a
fact. It does imply thatit is an impossible achievement, but is true
onthe average.
M O R E deaf people would achieve higher English skills if educators
allowed us to have a first language on which to build a 2nd language.
A N D fewer deaf people would graduate with merely a 3rd or 4th grade
reading level. If you would look at some of the very old films of deaf
Gallaudetians and other deaf spokespeople addressing audiences, you
would stunned at their eloquence and use of rather advanced word usage.
They are people who were educated in what Gallaudet, Clerc and others
called the "Natural Language of Signs of the Deaf." They had a 1st
language on which the 2nd one-English was taught. They were also better
writers than todays average deaf graduate. Heck! One of them , Veditz
even refuted the great Alexander Graham Bell's research and argument
against having deaf only schools and use of sign language and allowing
deaf people to marry each other. He provide statistical and methodological
proof of thefallacies of these arguments before the academy of Science
and Congressmen and won!
Never think I am claiming deaf people can't do something offhandily.
I argue that the narrowminded English only approach is demonstrated
failure andthere are valid reasons for why this is so. I stand by that
contention.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13761
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Your example of the perfect English deaf person is one person and
representative of the average deaf person. Nor will be in these recent
times. Social factors such as the degree of parent participation inthe
child's education, degree of hearing loss, age of onset of the hearing
loss, age in which schooling began and a host of other factors determine
how far a deaf person advances in mastering English or fails to. Then you
have the inherit mental ability of the person. Mystatement stands, the
average deaf person doesn't reach the level of English mastery that most
hearing people do. Grabbing one or a few examples of exceptions to the
case proves nothing except a stubborn rejection for facts.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13762
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
If the world is so full of deaf people who are English masters, why is it
the "average" deaf person continues to possess only a 3rd or 4th grade
reading level? What world are you referring to? All theones I know of
other than Earth do not harbor life, deaf or otherwise.
};->
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.orgLana.Berrington@f424.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Lana Berrington) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13763
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi James!
In a message of <10 Feb 91>, James Womack (1:300/14.0) writes:
JW>> Lana, speaking really good English is not the same thing as
JW>> masteringthe language. As for my statement that many or most deaf
I really didn't mean for it to sound as though I thought that "speaking really good english" meant they had mastered the language. I meant my statement only as an anecdote really. It's true.. My sign language teacher speaks really good english. I Really didn't intend this to be a scientific oberservation.. I have no speach therapy or educational background.. I'm just this person who's taking an ASL class from a really nice person who happens to speak "REALLY GOOD ENGLISH" and who also happens to be
profoundly deaf. Let me qualify what "really good" means to me. My teacher speaks so that somebody who had never talked with her before would understand exactly what she's saying and so that the same person who had never met her might describe her speach as having a sort of enhansed Barbara Walters quality to it. Her R's sound a bit like W's and she's not great with words that have wierd spellings or are of forign origin.
In my first class... she didn't say anything for like the first
hour.. only sign.. (after all.. we were there to learn) and I
though "Right on.. our teacher is deaf"... Then.. During a break
she was talking to somebody.. and I though "Huh? oh.. I guess Iwas
wrong.. she Can hear". I was right the first time. That's how
well she speaks.
JW>> I don't mean to sound pessimistic or like I am attacking, so please
JW>> don't take it that way. I am kind of miffed that there just seems to
JW>> be a flat refusal by thehearing dominated deaf educationprofession
JW>> that the deaf are deaf. You can trytraining us to be hearing all you
JW>> want and we willstill be deaf with allthat goes with being deaf. I am
Please don't pigeon-hole me in with those people to whome you are
refering. I'm not like that. Like I say.. I'm not in the
education profession.. I'm just this person taking a class because
now-and-again I work with deaf kids and I'd like to understand and
be understood when with them. I agree with you! People should
never be forced to be something they're not.
JW>> could videotape all these oral people I meet at PCC and the UA so you
JW>> could all see the joy of self-discovery when they come among other
JW>> deafies, the bitterness as they learn from experience or their own
Don't try to convert me! I'm on your side already! If I
wern't I'd have taken the Signed English course instead of insisting on
the ASL courses.
:-D
~ <*Lana*> ~
# Origin: The Point Of No Return: Calgary, AB (201:5500/55.4)
To respond netmail, use FSC-0038 DOMAIN lines or as 1st line of msg use:
@DOMAIN METRONET 201:5500/55.4 <your address: domain z:n/n>
=== FNPGate 2.50 Release
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!104!424!Lana.Berrington
Internet: Lana.Berrington@f424.n104.z1.fidonet.orgJay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Croft) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13769
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
It's essential not to equate the ability to speak a language with the
ability to "master" it.
What would you do if you lost your voice? You would not lose your
ability to read or write, nor to understand the spoken word.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Jay.Croft
Internet: Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgLana.Berrington@f424.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Lana Berrington) (03/01/91)
Index Number: 13800
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi James!
In a message of <15 Feb 91>, James Womack (1:300/7.0) writes:
JW>> Mystatement stands, the average deaf person doesn't reach the level of
JW>> English mastery that most hearing people do. Grabbing one or a few
JW>> examples of exceptions to the case proves nothing except a stubborn
JW>> rejection for facts.
Well, at least you've added a few qualifiers to your original
statement. The words "Average" and "Most" make you're statement
Perfectly acceptable to ME. But really .. there is no reason to be
hostile with me. I'm not stubborn, And I'm really not sure WHAT I
can say to make you understand that it's NOT ME that you should be
Fighting against.
<*Lana*> ~
=-=-=
The value of a program is proportional to the weight of it's output.
# Origin: The Point Of No Return (201:5500/55.4)
To respond netmail, use FSC-0038 DOMAIN lines or as 1st line of msg use:
@DOMAIN METRONET 201:5500/55.4 <your address: domain z:n/n>
=== FNPGate 2.50 Release
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!104!424!Lana.Berrington
Internet: Lana.Berrington@f424.n104.z1.fidonet.orgceduke@lotus.uwaterloo.ca (Carolyn Duke) (03/07/91)
Index Number: 13827 In article <17824@bunker.UUCP> James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org writes: >Index Number: 13697 > >Moreover, >a truly deaf person never really masters English on thelevel a hearing >person does it he or she is born deaf or deaf froma very early age. >The reason is that English is a phonetic language. The deaf person >(God, how many times will I say this?) cannot hear it. You can speak >it, signit, write it, lipread it all you want and you are simply not >ve >going to infuse the level of mastery a native or hearing speaker achieves >with English by virtue of deafness itself. I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I can communicate excellently in spoken and written English. I was a top student in regular high school and I now attend one of the top regular universities in Canada. If my parents had not been committed to teaching me to live in the real world, which is English, the best I could hope for would be a life in institutions performing menial jobs. Instead of studying for a Bachelor of Mathematics degree, hopefully to be followed by a Master of Math degree, I would be unable to perform long division. In summary, it would have been a tragic waste if I had not learned to communicate in English. ------ ceduke
Tim.Smith@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Tim Smith) (03/12/91)
Index Number: 13861
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Darn right.. It is a myth that deaf people cannot be accomplished in the
English language. I'm an living example. ASL is my first language.
However, I think ASL is the best medium in which to teach english to the
deaf.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Tim.Smith
Internet: Tim.Smith@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.orgElizabeth.Spiers@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Elizabeth Spiers) (03/12/91)
Index Number: 13877
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi, Ann. I'd like to respond to this one...Part of the problem why so
many deaf people have poor reading and writing skills is because the
majority come from hearing families and have not had a good language
base to begin with. If they could use ASL as their first language and
use a bilingual approach to learning English, that would be very
effective because they would have a language base to work on. Also,
many parents need to be educated about the options available for their
children. Too many parents learn only about the medical or pathological
viewpoint of deafness, instead of the cultural aspect of it.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Elizabeth.Spiers
Internet: Elizabeth.Spiers@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (03/15/91)
Index Number: 13929
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Tim, I truly doubt that any of us are truly masters of any language
when pressed to explain the guts and blood of what makes thelanguage
tick.
Now as to understanding ASL despite SEE, maybethatis not such a mystery.
It has been suggested by some researchers that a "deaf" person takes
to ASL so easily and readily because it is natural to the deaf and
the proper medium of formal language reception via the eye. English
on the other hand is proper for the ear. In essence then, your "weird"
ability is simply what comes natural for a deaf person. The same thinghappens
to many other formerly "SEE" deafies. The only ones who seem tohave
a problem adjusting to ASL are: very latein life deafened persons,
people who are not regularly exposed to it by native users and people
who in their hearts don't want to learn it and find excuses to not
learn it.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (03/15/91)
Index Number: 13943 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > Hi, Ann. I'd like to respond to this one...Part of the > problem why so many deaf people have poor reading and > writing skills is because the majority come from hearing > families and have not had a good language base to begin > with. If they could use ASL as their first language and > use a bilingual approach to learning English, that would > be very effective because they would have a language base > to work on. Also, many parents need to be educated about > the options available for their children. Too many parents > learn only about the medical or pathological viewpoint > of deafness, instead of the cultural aspect of it. I think you will find that parents are beginning to think of what is best for their child regardless of medical or pathological viewpoints - however, it does not hurt to have the child fully tested before going futher in whatever steps they may want to take. I'm fully aware of the opinions of most parents with deaf children in Oklahoma and you'd be surprised what they are pushing for - most want their children to be trained in lipreading with speech therapy even if they have to use ASL/SEE-2 as their first language. My point is that it can be done but unfortunately it is not always followed up as it does require many years of training and a great deal of patience on the parents part. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org
Julie.More@p2.f223.n163.z1.fidonet.org (Julie More) (03/15/91)
Index Number: 13965 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] In a message of <03 Feb 91 15:52:18>, Fran O'gorman (1:272/94) writes: > TS> I think the biggest problem is PARENTS. > >Go a little easier on us parents, Tim, remember one day you'll be >one too <grin> and it ain't an easy job for sure! :-) I couldn't have put it better myself, Fran. <grin> Being a parent is a hard job, and you don't get too much training for it. You kind of have to fend for yourself. Being a parent of a handicap child is harder, because beside being a parent you have to be a medical personnel to understand all the jargons they throw at you, a judge to decide which advice to take, an advocate to defend the rights of your special need child, a psychologist to argue with the test results done by professionals who fail to take your child's handicap into account when scoring test results, and you also have to have the patience of an angel to be able to teach all the special skills your child needs to learn in order to survive in our society. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!163!223.2!Julie.More Internet: Julie.More@p2.f223.n163.z1.fidonet.org
Jack.O'keeffe@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe) (03/15/91)
Index Number: 13971
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
CD> I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I can communicate
CD> excellently in spoken and written English. . . .
CD> Bachelor of Mathematics degree, hopefully to be followed by a
CD> Master of Math degree . . . . In summary, it would have been
CD> a tragic waste if I had not learned to communicate in English.
Thank you for posting that, Carolyn. Many profoundly deaf persons
attain mastery of English and other languages, if only given the
opportunity. What a tragedy that a few so-called educators of the
deaf continue to deny them that chance, preferring instead to
imprison them within the "Deaf Apartheit".
Best of luck with your studies!
... Xpress Yourself!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgTim.Smith@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Tim Smith) (03/15/91)
Index Number: 13980
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
No.. DOn't get me wrog.. I was not laying ALL the blame on parents.. Not
at all.. I just said the number 1 factor is PARENTS.
How can you argue that?
Is't it true that PARENTS are number 1 of importance to a child?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Tim.Smith
Internet: Tim.Smith@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org