Why everyone have to hate people with CI?

[GrendelQ]

I see speech as phonetics (not just the ability to speak) therefore it is spoken language,

However, you say speech is 'speech skills' therefore 'the ability to speak'.
Spoken language is therefore not speech. That is why I wrote it as such. I was not in fact agreeing with you but disagreeing.

I think you are agreeing with me. Thanks! (Although I didn't say "speech is 'speech skills' therefore 'the ability to speak'" -- I think you wrote that). I wrote: "... speech is not a language, it is a skill..."

Adding: although maybe you are changing your mind after realizing you had inadvertently agreed with me. It looks like you might be trying to hold two opposing positions now.

 

[BecLak]

Again, if you want to position yourself as disagreeing with me, you are going to have to actually disagree with me. Otherwise, you can just hit the like button on all my posts and save yourself a lot of time.

I think you are the one that needs to go back through your posts and read them.

You are saying that if someone has 'speech skills' but does not have access to sounds, via CIs or HAs, then they cannot acquire comprehension, receptivity, or expression and therefore is either stupid or illiterate. Because that is what you are saying in your comments to me. You are challenging me that I cannot stand my own in the expression of the English language?

I did not have access to CIs and did not have HAs (but for a brief period), my range is below the speech range, so therefore you are saying it is not possible or a 'handicap' for me to comprehend, process or express myself in language because of lack of access to sound. On the contrary!

 

[BecLak]

You are agreeing with me. Thanks! (Although I didn't say "speech is 'speech skills' therefore 'the ability to speak'" -- I think you wrote that). I wrote: "... speech is not a language, it is a skill..."

I am not agreeing with you, but disagreeing! :roll:

 

[GrendelQ]

No, again, if you insist on making such a mistaken claim, please quote or point to the post in which you think I say that access to sound is required to express, receive, and comprehend language. I don't think what you refer to as your handicap in comprehension or processing has anything to do with your access to sound, your HAs, or your severe hearing loss.

I think you are the one that needs to go back through your posts and read them.

You are saying that if someone has 'speech skills' but does not have access to sounds, via CIs or HAs, then they cannot acquire comprehension, receptivity, or expression and therefore is either stupid or illiterate. Because that is what you are saying in your comments to me. You are challenging me that I cannot stand my own in the expression of the English language?

I did not have access to CIs and did not have HAs (but for a brief period), my range is below the speech range, so therefore you are saying it is not possible or a 'handicap' for me to comprehend, process or express myself in language because of lack of access to sound. On the contrary!

 

[Daredevel7]

Wooooooowwww major communication failure..... Beclak!!! Grendel is agreeing with you, I swear!!!!

 

[playsonfreeway]

Wirelessly posted

I'm so confused can you start over? ;-)

 

[GrendelQ]

Wooooooowwww major communication failure..... Beclak!!! Grendel is agreeing with you, I swear!!!!

Apparently for Beclak the prospect of agreeing with me is too much of a horror to bear.

 

[Bottesini]

Still fighting......

 

[Grummer]

and DROP the bloody discriminating word 'handicap' !!
I HATE it, it is against the disabled people's rights counter-ideology

 

[BecLak]

No, again, if you insist on making such a mistaken claim, please quote or point to the post in which you think I say that access to sound is required to express, receive, and comprehend language. I don't think what you refer to as your handicap in comprehension or processing has anything to do with your access to sound, your HAs, or your severe hearing loss.

For your information - I do not have a handicap.

GQ, I will not stand here and watch you connive and manipulate the beauty of written language into a twisted, confusing mess. I have said what needs to be said, need I say more?

Wooooooowwww major communication failure..... Beclak!!! Grendel is agreeing with you, I swear!!!!

Thank you DD, I know you try to take an unbiased view, however, this is no communication breakdown on my part. This happened before with GQ when we hit this 'discussion' in previous threads. I am referring to many of her past posts on the same issue. (sorry, I am not familiar with how to call up posts from previous threads as evidence, I wish I knew how.) If she has taken the time to read my any of my posts from previous threads, she has been hurling insults at me and others like me at every turn. She keeps pulling the focus to this thread alone, in the hope that other readers may not pay attention to previous threads on the same issue.

This is my viewpoint on CIs and HAs:

I am not against CIs or HAs, but my stance is very strongly in support of the option that Deaf and deaf can do without them. They can have thesame quality of life without CIs or HAs. I and many here on AD are prove of that. If they want them fine, it is their personal choice, if they don't, then they should not be pressured to be someone they are not.

Wirelessly posted

I'm so confused can you start over? ;-)

POF, This a clever trick by GQ. If you want more clarification, I will be happy to comply.

 

[BecLak]

Still fighting......

Don't worry Botts, we will live to see another day

 

[GrendelQ]

For your information - I do not have a handicap.

You were the one who used that odd term with regard to yourself.

I did not have access to CIs and did not have HAs (but for a brief period), my range is below the speech range, so therefore you are saying it is not possible or a 'handicap' for me to comprehend, process or express myself in language because of lack of access to sound. On the contrary!

 

[GrendelQ]

and DROP the bloody discriminating word 'handicap' !!
I HATE it, it is against the disabled people's rights counter-ideology

Agreed. I thought it was absolutely bizarre that Beclak defines herself in that way. Or does not define herself, depending upon the post.

 

[GrendelQ]

This is my viewpoint on CIs and HAs:

I am not against CIs or HAs, but my stance is very strongly in support of the option that Deaf and deaf can do without them. They can have thesame quality of life without CIs or HAs. I and many here on AD are prove of that. If they want them fine, it is their personal choice, if they don't, then they should not be pressured to be someone they are not.

POF, This a clever trick by GQ. If you want more clarification, I will be happy to comply.

And once again, we are in agreement.

 

[BecLak]

You were the one who used that odd term with regard to yourself.

Agreed. I thought it was absolutely bizarre that Beclak defines herself in that way.

Here you go again GQ! I did not refer to myself as having a handicap.

Originally Posted by BecLak
I did not have access to CIs and did not have HAs (but for a brief period), my range is below the speech range, so therefore you (as in GQ) are saying it is not possible or a 'handicap' (note inverted commas) for me to comprehend, process or express myself in language because of lack of access to sound. On the contrary!

 

[drphil]

Grummer: Is it now that" able people" are disabled in the "disabled rights counter ideology" which handicap is that?

Is this something new in Sociology?
Different to say the least.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[drphil]

In the area of this thread: are deaf persons with Cochlear Implants-disabled, abled or something else?

Is this something new in Sociology?
Different to say the least.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[GrendelQ]

Here you go again GQ! I did not refer to myself as having a handicap.

".....you (as in GQ) are saying that I have a 'handicap' (notice inverted commas)".

Yes, you used inverted commas: that doesn't make it my quote no matter how much you wish that were the case. That was your own use of the term with regard to yourself that you were emphasizing, not mine.

 

[BecLak]

And once again, we are in agreement.

If this be truly so, then why the manipulation, conniving, and insults? It is a clever ploy you play GQ, I for one, will not be duped by it.

 

[GrendelQ]

If this be truly so, then why the manipulation, conniving, and insults? It is a clever ploy you play GQ, I for one, will not be duped by it.

I have been saying this post after post. Very directly. As have others. You have been too busy making up inverted quotes to see this. The clever ploys are in your head.