more interpreter issues...UGH!

Status
Not open for further replies.
CSign said:
Actually, I'd say that post was personal. MM specifically pointed out that my post about there being laws in place is irrelevant thanks to "hearing ignorant parents". Pulling my post in saying it is irrelevant is actually personal. That post was also relevant to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. He said your opinion was irrelevent in the way things actually occur. That is a statement about an opinion, not a statement about you personally. Correcting a mistaken assumption is not a personal attack. You just perceive it to be. Why is it that you interpret mere correction of a mistaken perception to be a personal attack on you?
 
jillio said:
No it isn't. He said your opinion was irrelevent in the way things actually occur. That is a statement about an opinion, not a statement about you personally. Correcting a mistaken assumption is not a personal attack. You just perceive it to be. Why is it that you interpret mere correction of a mistaken perception to be a personal attack on you?
Click to expand...

How is it that me stating there are laws an assumption?

It's a fact- not a mistaken assumption.
 
CSign said:
How is it that me stating there are laws an assumption?

It's a fact- not a mistaken assumption.
Click to expand...

The assumption was that it is a ready made solution to the issues being discussed about problems with interpreters.

Yes, there are laws available. Do they prevent these things from happening? No, they don't. And legal resolutions are time consuming and stressful. I have a good friend that is currently suing a major university for violations of rights in regard to terps. It has not been easy for him to follow through. They make it as miserable on the complaintant as they can in the hopes that they will drop the lawsuit. Just getting the case to court is a major accomplishment, taking time, documentation, depositions, etc, etc etc.

That is not a personal attack on your statement. It is clarifying what "there are laws" really means in practice and application. It is expanding on the statement you made. Which is basically what MM was doing.
 
jillio said:
The assumption was that it is a ready made solution to the issues being discussed about problems with interpreters.

Yes, there are laws available. Do they prevent these things from happening? No, they don't. And legal resolutions are time consuming and stressful. I have a good friend that is currently suing a major university for violations of rights in regard to terps. It has not been easy for him to follow through. They make it as miserable on the complaintant as they can in the hopes that they will drop the lawsuit. Just getting the case to court is a major accomplishment, taking time, documentation, depositions, etc, etc etc.

That is not a personal attack on your statement. It is clarifying what "there are laws" really means in practice and application. It is expanding on the statement you made. Which is basically what MM was doing.
Click to expand...
.

There was no expanding on any statement I made. There was a blanket statement that, "deaf kids still end up getting screwed thanks to ignorant hearing parents". With a comment directed at me, and a link to one of my posts.

The funniest part about it all was that I was agreeing with MM, yet he persisted in posting in opposition of my factual statements. :hmm:
 
CSign said:
...he persisted in posting in opposition of my factual statements..
Click to expand...

It's like this:

"I got ripped off because of that store's shady business practices."
"But there are consumer protection laws to prevent that sort of thing."
"There are, but I still got ripped off."
 
How about this one?

I was hit by a drunk driver.
There are laws against that.
There are. But I was still hit by a drunk driver.

My neighbor overdosed on heroin and died.
There are laws against selling and using herion.
There are, but my neighbor is still dead from an overdose.
 
]
Mountain Man said:
It's like this:

"I got ripped off because of that store's shady business practices."
"But there are consumer protection laws to prevent that sort of thing."
"There are, but I still got ripped off."
Click to expand...

What is your point MM? I addressed that fact on page 2 or 3, and again on page 8 I believe. We've already been through this, in fact I believe you apologized for your "misunderstanding". I've never said that all Deaf Ed is great because there are laws. I've said that there are remedies to pursue to help solve interpreter problems.

That is what this thread was supposed to be about- a bad interpreter and the posters experience. Her problem has fortunately been solved.

Why you continue making ridiculous posts; in an effort to be contrary to me- is beyond me. My posts are in alignment with your position, yet you persist in making posts to "clarify your position" when in reality I've demonstrated a similiar position from the start of this thread.

Why don't we get back on topic, or at least cut out the unnecesary circles we seem to be running in.
 
CSign said:
]

What is your point MM? I addressed that fact on page 2 or 3, and again on page 8 I believe. We've already been through this, in fact I believe you apologized for your "misunderstanding". I've never said that all Deaf Ed is great because there are laws. I've said that there are remedies to pursue to help solve interpreter problems.

That is what this thread was supposed to be about- a bad interpreter and the posters experience. Her problem has fortunately been solved.

Why you continue making ridiculous posts; in an effort to be contrary to me- is beyond me. My posts are in alignment with your position, yet you persist in making posts to "clarify your position" when in reality I've demonstrated a similiar position from the start of this thread.

Why don't we get back on topic, or at least cut out the unnecesary circles we seem to be running in.
Click to expand...

It takes at least two to argue. You're just as implicit in this argument as he is. You asked why he persisted in making ridiculous comments and you suggested to stop running in circles.

You could stop this running in circles by not responding at all but you did, thus keeping the running in circles going.

If you had already made your point several times, that should be enough.
 
CSign said:
]

What is your point MM? I addressed that fact on page 2 or 3, and again on page 8 I believe. We've already been through this, in fact I believe you apologized for your "misunderstanding". I've never said that all Deaf Ed is great because there are laws. I've said that there are remedies to pursue to help solve interpreter problems.

That is what this thread was supposed to be about- a bad interpreter and the posters experience. Her problem has fortunately been solved.

Why you continue making ridiculous posts; in an effort to be contrary to me- is beyond me. My posts are in alignment with your position, yet you persist in making posts to "clarify your position" when in reality I've demonstrated a similiar position from the start of this thread.

Why don't we get back on topic, or at least cut out the unnecesary circles we seem to be running in.
Click to expand...

Do you ever recognize the huge part you play in these things? If you would monitor your own behavior as frequently as you do other people's, the arguments would never get going. There is no need for you to make the same point over and over and over....Say what you want to say and drop it. Stop accusing people of attacking you. Stop thinking every post that doesn't agree with what you say is a personal insult. That is what gets all the arguments started. You claiming that someone is personally attacking you because they correct something you have stated.:roll: Just stop before you get another thread locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top