Here to Stay

loml · 08-10-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

A different cue for the deaf
'Cued speech' has produced strong academic results -- and a dispute
By Gadi Dechter
sun reporter
September 6, 2006

Zainab Alkebsi, 18, writes for the student newspaper at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, which she attends on a full academic scholarship. Rockville native Allison Kaftan, 25, is pursuing a doctorate in English at George Washington University. Jeff Majors, 33, studies computer programming in Houston.

If they weren't deaf, they would simply be high-achievers. But when the average American deaf 18-year-old reads at just a fourth-grade level, these students' accomplishments are as noteworthy as their secret to success is controversial.

As children, Alkebsi, Kaftan and Majors learned English through a technique called cued speech, which helps deaf people accurately read lips by using eight hand signs that signify, depending on their placement around the mouth, different phonetic sounds.

Advocates say cued speech holds enormous potential for tackling the deaf literacy crisis in a nation where almost 40,000 school-age children are in deaf education programs. But the technique is staunchly opposed by many in the mainstream deaf community, who find cued speech offensive.

"It goes back to having a pathological view of deafness," said Mark Rust, coordinator of the deaf education program at McDaniel College in Westminster. "The pathological view of deafness is, 'I need to fix you.' And the easiest way to fix you is to give you English."

American Sign Language is widely considered the language of deaf people in the U.S., and it is recognized as a foreign language in 40 states, including Maryland. It has no grammatical or syntactical relationship to spoken English. By contrast, cued English is not a language but an aid to English comprehension - a system that helps deaf people read lips with precision. Unlike American Sign Language interpreters, who translate from English to sign language and back, cued speech transliterators use hand signals to make spoken English understood by the deaf.

Viewed as threat
Many in the mainstream deaf community see this as an "English-first" orientation. As a result, cued speech is viewed by some American Sign Language advocates as a threat, said Barbara Raimondo, advocacy director at the American Society of Deaf Children. She traces that perception to the system's history at Gallaudet University, where it was developed in the early 1960s by college administrator R. Orin Cornett to combat poor reading comprehension among students at the nation's only university for the deaf.

"When cueing was invented at Gallaudet, it was invented for the purpose of teaching deaf people English reading and writing," Raimondo said. "But what happened is, it got taken over by people who said, 'Let's use it for speaking and spoken language.' So I think it has been used to exclude sign language."

That was a particularly sensitive issue in the 1960s, when many in the deaf community embraced American Sign Language as their natural language.

While signing flourished, cued speech languished as politically incorrect. Today, the cued speech community constitutes a tiny fraction of deaf Americans. In 2005, fewer than 200 of 37,500 deaf and hard-of-hearing students in elementary and secondary schools nationwide used the technique as their primary mode of communication with teachers, a survey by the Gallaudet Research Institute found.

Among all ages, no more than several thousand deaf Americans use cued speech, according to an official with the National Cued Speech Association, which recently held a conference at Towson University to celebrate the technique's 40-year anniversary.

But the technique did find a minor foothold in deaf education in the late 1970s, when some public school systems - notably Montgomery County - employed cueing in the classroom, in addition to sign language, as early as pre-school.

As they enter mainstream colleges and universities, the early generations of deaf students educated with cued speech have become ambassadors for the technique, but they have also encountered logistical and ideological hurdles.

Hilary Franklin was one of three deaf cueing students at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in the mid-1990s. The university often couldn't find cued speech transliterators. When they were available, the transliterators were usually "lousy," she said.

Franklin's experience is common, according to Jean Krause, a professor of communication science and disorders at the University of South Florida, and a cueing advocate. "The problem of finding qualified and/or certified transliterators is enormous," Krause said in an e-mail.

There are only about 100 certified cued speech transliterators in the U.S., according to the agency that handles certification. Krause said there is an immediate need for at least 100 more.

A transliterator silently mouths a speaker's words while simultaneously using hand signals to represent each uttered phoneme, one of the 43 vowel-consonant combinations that are the smallest part of English speech.

The shape of the transliterator's hand represents a consonant sound, while the position indicates a vowel.

"Cueing represents every single thing that's being said [except], importantly, things that are confusing to someone who is lip reading, because many words look alike on the lips," said Sarina Roffe, president of the National Cued Speech Association.

"Let's say I'm in a biology classroom. There's a big difference between the words 'psychology,' 'psychologist' and 'psychological,'" said Roffe, "but they're very confusing to the lip reader because they're identical at the beginning and you can easily make mistakes."

Though she has become adept at reading lips without the signs, Alkebsi needs a transliterator in her UMBC classes because "the professor moves around the room while [he] is talking, or writes on the board with [his] back turned," she said.

Finding a qualified transliterator was a constant struggle for Franklin, who graduated from Chapel Hill in 2003. "Many transliterators work for the public school systems, so they're not readily available at colleges that typically only have one or two deaf cueing students and therefore can't guarantee a full-time job to transliterators," she said.

Not in mainstream
Cued speech transliteration is not a regular component of any mainstream deaf teacher-education program, Krause said, though Gallaudet and Columbia University offer elective courses in the subject.

Lisa Houck, director of curriculum and instruction at the Maryland School for the Deaf, said cued speech is not used there and is not under consideration.

It's also not in use at McDaniel College, which has one of the largest graduate programs in deaf education in the country.

"Our philosophy is, we feel American Sign Language should be the language of instruction," said Rust. "And by developing a strong foundation in ASL, you can lead students to develop English literacy skills."

College students who cue might encounter resistance from campus disability offices.

"I am so much against [cued speech], and so are the deaf," said Marla Holt, coordinator of deaf services at the University of Baltimore. "Their natural language is American Sign Language."

Holt, who is also a sign language interpreter, said that in her 15 years at the university, no deaf student has asked for a cued speech transliterator. She would provide one if asked, she said, but only reluctantly: "I would not be real thrilled about it, but that is their right. Luckily, I have never been asked that."

Such attitudes are common, said Jeff Majors. "I've met plenty of resistance from deaf people, teachers and interpreters," he said in an e-mail interview. "It takes time to convince them that using cued speech is a genuine benefit for the deaf."

Majors, whose parents fought to introduce the technique at a school for the deaf in Houston when he was 8 and unable to read or write, is certain he would be illiterate today without it.

"The truth is, my signing friends from my school ... none of them made it," he said. "Most dropped out. Most have jobs they don't want. ... Their English is terrible."

Cueing students who were interviewed expressed amusement that eight hand signs could be viewed as a threat to American Sign Language, which they all use and praise as rich and expressive.

"It's ridiculous, actually, to think that cueing could ever eradicate ASL and its accompanying culture," said Allison Kaftan, the English doctoral student, whose 4-year-old daughter also is deaf.

"But the frank and honest truth is that cueing is extremely successful in conveying English effortlessly to deaf people," said Kaftan, who cues with her daughter. "Since we all hold proficiency in English as the gold standard of literacy, cueing is here to stay."

Hands & Voices Bulletin Board :: View topic - Article on Cued Speech

Interpretrator · 08-15-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

It's also not in use at McDaniel College, which has one of the largest graduate programs in deaf education in the country.

"Our philosophy is, we feel American Sign Language should be the language of instruction," said Rust. "And by developing a strong foundation in ASL, you can lead students to develop English literacy skills."

Bingo.

shel90 · 08-15-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

Bingo.

Agreed...prefer to use a real language not a coded system...

When cueing was invented at Gallaudet, it was invented for the purpose of teaching deaf people English reading and writing," Raimondo said. "But what happened is, it got taken over by people who said, 'Let's use it for speaking and spoken language.' So I think it has been used to exclude sign language."

So it was invented to use as a tool to teach deaf people reading and writing..I am fine with keeping it that way but use it for language development? eeeehh

Gamer12 · 08-15-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

Bingo.

amen.

shel90, likewise. whoever thinks otherwise is badly undereducated.

Roadrunner · 08-15-2007, 01:55 PM

Interesting article--

During times when attitudes, misinformation and whatnots..can get in the way of something useful and resourceful...transliteration, cued speech can benefit a good number of those who could rely on this method. Sadly enough, not many are willingly to adhere to it or even accept this type of method or way that surely can attribute in positive ways for some. However, it is not used to eradicate another way or method whatsoever, using all 'tools and resources' can enable many to move forward in a way with minimal struggling.

~RR

shel90 · 08-15-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Interesting article--

During times when attitudes, misinformation and whatnots..can get in the way of something useful and resourceful...transliteration, cued speech can benefit a good number of those who could rely on this method. Sadly enough, not many are willingly to adhere to it or even accept this type of method or way that surely can attribute in positive ways for some. However, it is not used to eradicate another way or method whatsoever, using all 'tools and resources' can enable many to move forward in a way with minimal struggling.

~RR

Tried SEE with my students..didnt work. Dont know about CS but my school is a BiBi education environment. The speech teachers who have worked at the school for decades said that my work did try CS...didnt work. So...if the methods or tools dont work for all deaf/hoh children better stick to language which are English and ASL. That's my opinion..

jillio · 08-15-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Tried SEE with my students..didnt work. Dont know about CS but my school is a BiBi education environment. The speech teachers who have worked at the school for decades said that my work did try CS...didnt work. So...if the methods or tools dont work for all deaf/hoh children better stick to language which are English and ASL. That's my opinion..

Agreed. And as a generally utilized methodology, CS has a 40 year history of not working.

Roadrunner · 08-15-2007, 03:34 PM

What works, works...what doesn't work doesn't work....

~RR

Interpretrator · 08-15-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

However, it is not used to eradicate another way or method whatsoever, using all 'tools and resources' can enable many to move forward in a way with minimal struggling.

"Can," yes.

But in practice? It doesn't.

I thoroughly agree that every and all methods should be employed to improve the literacy of deaf children/adults. And if that means, in the case of a particular child, ONLY using English/SEE/cuing/CIs/HAs, then I stand up and applaud if it really works.

The problem is people do not understand that the human brain needs to develop a natural language by a very early age. Deaf children simply do not have access to the aural channel which is required for them to naturally acquire English. ("Naturally" is important because I am obviously not saying they cannot acquire English.) When parents talk to and around prelingual children, this is an ESSENTIAL component in the development of language for many reasons; most importantly, the parents become the language models for the children who predictably and systematically learn the rules of English without them being explicitly taught. So this means one of two things:

1. Use a natural sign language such as ASL.
2. Use English, which necessitates a great deal more time filling in the gap created by lack of information in the aural channel. Deaf children will have no natural access to error correction or language models and it will have to be done via cuing, SEE, and lots and lots of reading and writing.

Like I said, I'm in favor of whatever works for each individual child. But clearly one option is just simpler: use the language that the child can acquire as naturally as a hearing child acquires a spoken language.

(Of course this brings up more problems since most hearing parents, even the ones who diligently learn sign when their child is deaf, are not fluent, native-like language models -- and neither are most teachers or interpreters the kids will encounter -- so even with the best of intentions towards ASL, deaf children rarely acquire it fully until they are in an environment with strong language models, such as a deaf school.)

In a perfect world, one language would be acquired fully first, and then another can be taught using principles of second-language acquisition. Both languages have their problems as outlined above, looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. From a purely linguistic standpoint, ASL is a natural language of the deaf and FAR easier to acquire for deaf children than English. But there are many other considerations than what is linguistically desirable, and I understand that cuing and English-based sign systems are a reaction to that.

Whew! Sorry, you got caught in my thoughts as I prepare my writing courses for deaf college students.

shel90 · 08-15-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

"Can," yes.

But in practice? It doesn't.

I thoroughly agree that every and all methods should be employed to improve the literacy of deaf children/adults. And if that means, in the case of a particular child, ONLY using English/SEE/cuing/CIs/HAs, then I stand up and applaud if it really works.

The problem is people do not understand that the human brain needs to develop a natural language by a very early age. Deaf children simply do not have access to the aural channel which is required for them to naturally acquire English. ("Naturally" is important because I am obviously not saying they cannot acquire English.) When parents talk to and around prelingual children, this is an ESSENTIAL component in the development of language for many reasons; most importantly, the parents become the language models for the children who predictably and systematically learn the rules of English without them being explicitly taught. So this means one of two things:

1. Use a natural sign language such as ASL.
2. Use English, which necessitates a great deal more time filling in the gap created by lack of information in the aural channel. Deaf children will have no natural access to error correction or language models and it will have to be done via cuing, SEE, and lots and lots of reading and writing.

Like I said, I'm in favor of whatever works for each individual child. But clearly one option is just simpler: use the language that the child can acquire as naturally as a hearing child acquires a spoken language.

(Of course this brings up more problems since most hearing parents, even the ones who diligently learn sign when their child is deaf, are not fluent, native-like language models -- and neither are most teachers or interpreters the kids will encounter -- so even with the best of intentions towards ASL, deaf children rarely acquire it fully until they are in an environment with strong language models, such as a deaf school.)

In a perfect world, one language would be acquired fully first, and then another can be taught using principles of second-language acquisition. Both languages have their problems as outlined above, looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. From a purely linguistic standpoint, ASL is a natural language of the deaf and FAR easier to acquire for deaf children than English. But there are many other considerations than what is linguistically desirable, and I understand that cuing and English-based sign systems are a reaction to that.

Whew! Sorry, you got caught in my thoughts as I prepare my writing courses for deaf college students.

What are feelings or thoughts about trying all those methods, SEE, oral, CS, and TC on deaf children and after a few years or so, the children show signs of these methods not working therefore becoming delayed in language?

Roadrunner · 08-15-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

..Whew! Sorry, you got caught in my thoughts as I prepare my writing courses for deaf college students.

Np--

The word 'can' surely can make a whole lotta difference!

However, eloquently good post.

~RR

Interpretrator · 08-15-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

What are feelings or thoughts about trying all those methods, SEE, oral, CS, and TC on deaf children and after a few years or so, the children show signs of these methods not working therefore becoming delayed in language?

Here's where I stand.

If a hearing friend were to have a deaf child, I would strongly advocate that the parents learn ASL as soon and as quickly as possible, and start reaching out to the deaf community to provide language models for the child and improve their ASL. That way, in the first crucial years of language development, even before the child can sign one- or two-word sentences (which, by the way, happens at the exact same rate as hearing children say their first sentences), the child is exposed to as much natural language as possible and therefore develops an age-approprient proficiency in language.

The exception would be if they decided to implant their child prelingually with CIs. Now whether parents choose to use HAs or CIs, that is not my business. I work with lots of different kinds of deaf people and I couldn't do that if I judged them or their parents or whatever. My concern is strictly about language development. In this case it's possible English would be the best first language, but I know nothing about language development in prelingually implanted children. Either way: a good understanding of a first language is key.

If once the child has an age-appropriate grasp of language, parents want to start introducing him to English, that seems fine to me. It is a harder language to learn for a deaf child and so it's good to start as young as possible, but only once that child has a firm grasp on the nature of language itself, of symbols be they words or signs. Children who do not receive comprehensible input in a natural language can suffer from lifelong language difficulties. (Not all do, of course.) Multilingualism, in both hearing and deaf children, has been shown many times over to have beneficial effects on language and cognitive skills.

I do believe, once the child has language competence, that adding in things like SEE, oral, CS, TC, or whatever, could potentially benefit the child. I think it's important to respect the child's wishes; if she REALLY does not wish to go to speech therapy, she should not be forced to. If later in life she becomes motivated to learn, she can learn then. If on the other hand she picks up on cued speech and it works for her, then so much the better. Perhaps a child whose native language is ASL really connects with SEE and it serves as a bridge to understanding written English. That would be wonderful.

The important thing to remember is that no method works for everyone. There is no one way to do it. It's more important that people are educated about all the relevant linguistic information before they pick a method of educating their child, so that if something doesn't seem to be working, another method could be tried. That way, shel, it doesn't have to be years before giving up on something that isn't working.

But I'll say one last time that I believe the best key for success is a strong foundation in some kind of natural language. Perhaps for children implanted with CIs or who function with HAs, English is that first language, as long as it is learned early. For other deaf children, it is ASL or any natural sign language.

That's my personal position on it, based on my education in sign language, linguistics, interpreting, teaching English as a second language, and working in the educational field with deaf people.

shel90 · 08-15-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

Here's where I stand.

If a hearing friend were to have a deaf child, I would strongly advocate that the parents learn ASL as soon and as quickly as possible, and start reaching out to the deaf community to provide language models for the child and improve their ASL. That way, in the first crucial years of language development, even before the child can sign one- or two-word sentences (which, by the way, happens at the exact same rate as hearing children say their first sentences), the child is exposed to as much natural language as possible and therefore develops an age-approprient proficiency in language.

The exception would be if they decided to implant their child prelingually with CIs. Now whether parents choose to use HAs or CIs, that is not my business. I work with lots of different kinds of deaf people and I couldn't do that if I judged them or their parents or whatever. My concern is strictly about language development. In this case it's possible English would be the best first language, but I know nothing about language development in prelingually implanted children. Either way: a good understanding of a first language is key.

If once the child has an age-appropriate grasp of language, parents want to start introducing him to English, that seems fine to me. It is a harder language to learn for a deaf child and so it's good to start as young as possible, but only once that child has a firm grasp on the nature of language itself, of symbols be they words or signs. Children who do not receive comprehensible input in a natural language can suffer from lifelong language difficulties. (Not all do, of course.) Multilingualism, in both hearing and deaf children, has been shown many times over to have beneficial effects on language and cognitive skills.

I do believe, once the child has language competence, that adding in things like SEE, oral, CS, TC, or whatever, could potentially benefit the child. I think it's important to respect the child's wishes; if she REALLY does not wish to go to speech therapy, she should not be forced to. If later in life she becomes motivated to learn, she can learn then. If on the other hand she picks up on cued speech and it works for her, then so much the better. Perhaps a child whose native language is ASL really connects with SEE and it serves as a bridge to understanding written English. That would be wonderful.

The important thing to remember is that no method works for everyone. There is no one way to do it. It's more important that people are educated about all the relevant linguistic information before they pick a method of educating their child, so that if something doesn't seem to be working, another method could be tried. That way, shel, it doesn't have to be years before giving up on something that isn't working.

But I'll say one last time that I believe the best key for success is a strong foundation in some kind of natural language. Perhaps for children implanted with CIs or who function with HAs, English is that first language, as long as it is learned early. For other deaf children, it is ASL or any natural sign language.

That's my personal position on it, based on my education in sign language, linguistics, interpreting, teaching English as a second language, and working in the educational field with deaf people.

Thanks for answering my question.

I am just so frustrated with seeing children being language deprived for so many years..even see middle school kids getting referred to our school cuz they couldnt keep up. Why wait so long? That is what I will never ever understand. Denial or what? It just frustrates me seeing children being deprived of language for too long. I worked with first graders last year who used to be in the mainstreamed schools and just couldnt keep up but when they come to me, they are so delayed that I cant even teach them reading at writing yet since they are still developing language. Then I have the parents bitching at me for not teaching them reading and writing..how can I if their language levels are at 2 or 3 years old age level? I do introduce print concepts but they hold no meaning yet...it is so tough.

Interpretrator · 08-15-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Why wait so long? That is what I will never ever understand. Denial or what?

My only guess is that people are just not aware of the importance of early language acquisition.

loml · 08-15-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Eden, Lansdale, Cappell, Crain, Zeffiro, and LaSasso (submitted for publication) report results of a study that incorporated functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) brain imaging techniques to learn about how deaf individuals from Cued Speech backgrounds process phonological information. In that study, participants were matched on a word reading task
with hearing peers and asked to perform phoneme deletion tasks while in an fMRI scanner. Results of that study revealed that 1) the phonological abilities of Cued Speech users were comparable to their hearing peers, and 2) Cued Speech users use the same parts of the brain, including the so-called “auditory” cortex, to process phonological information as their hearing peers. This study provides fMRI evidence that deaf individuals acquire phonological information comparable to hearing peers. It also suggests that deaf students process phonological information in the same parts of the brain as hearing individuals.

Quote:

A cued English immersion environment supplies deaf children with two conditions that are needed for acquiring the traditionally spoken home language of their parents. Specifically, the child has clear, complete visual access to the continuous phoneme stream and opportunities for interactions with fluent language models. In theory, there is no reason that a deaf child immersed in an environment where the spoken language is cued should not develop competence in the home language comparable to that of hearing peers. Research with both behavioral and fMRI methods has established that deaf individuals can acquire phonological abilities comparable to those of hearing peers. Further, deaf children from home and school cued language environments, including cued English, have already demonstrated English and reading competencies comparable to hearing peers.

Odssey:Fall 2003(Vol. 5 Iss. 1)

Odyssey-New Directions in Deaf Education; Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University

jillio · 08-16-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

What works, works...what doesn't work doesn't work....

~RR

That's very philosophical!

jillio · 08-16-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Odssey:Fall 2003(Vol. 5 Iss. 1)

Odyssey-New Directions in Deaf Education; Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University

I will refer you back to the Marshark study that I posted earlier. Highest performing groups in comparison to hearing peers are deaf exposed to sign and speech. Taht is academic performance all around. Academically, the highest performing group of all of the subgroups is deaf of deaf.

And CS was never intended as a tool for language acquisition. Even most of your many CS posts identify CS as an adjuct to lipreading and used for clarification and to add gloss to spoken language.

jillio · 08-16-2007, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

"Can," yes.

But in practice? It doesn't.

I thoroughly agree that every and all methods should be employed to improve the literacy of deaf children/adults. And if that means, in the case of a particular child, ONLY using English/SEE/cuing/CIs/HAs, then I stand up and applaud if it really works.

The problem is people do not understand that the human brain needs to develop a natural language by a very early age. Deaf children simply do not have access to the aural channel which is required for them to naturally acquire English. ("Naturally" is important because I am obviously not saying they cannot acquire English.) When parents talk to and around prelingual children, this is an ESSENTIAL component in the development of language for many reasons; most importantly, the parents become the language models for the children who predictably and systematically learn the rules of English without them being explicitly taught. So this means one of two things:

1. Use a natural sign language such as ASL.
2. Use English, which necessitates a great deal more time filling in the gap created by lack of information in the aural channel. Deaf children will have no natural access to error correction or language models and it will have to be done via cuing, SEE, and lots and lots of reading and writing.

Like I said, I'm in favor of whatever works for each individual child. But clearly one option is just simpler: use the language that the child can acquire as naturally as a hearing child acquires a spoken language.

(Of course this brings up more problems since most hearing parents, even the ones who diligently learn sign when their child is deaf, are not fluent, native-like language models -- and neither are most teachers or interpreters the kids will encounter -- so even with the best of intentions towards ASL, deaf children rarely acquire it fully until they are in an environment with strong language models, such as a deaf school.)

In a perfect world, one language would be acquired fully first, and then another can be taught using principles of second-language acquisition. Both languages have their problems as outlined above, looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. From a purely linguistic standpoint, ASL is a natural language of the deaf and FAR easier to acquire for deaf children than English. But there are many other considerations than what is linguistically desirable, and I understand that cuing and English-based sign systems are a reaction to that.

Whew! Sorry, you got caught in my thoughts as I prepare my writing courses for deaf college students.

I have been saying the same thing post after post after post.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

08-15-2007, 01:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
Roadrunner Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,090	Interesting article-- During times when attitudes, misinformation and whatnots..can get in the way of something useful and resourceful...transliteration, cued speech can benefit a good number of those who could rely on this method. Sadly enough, not many are willingly to adhere to it or even accept this type of method or way that surely can attribute in positive ways for some. However, it is not used to eradicate another way or method whatsoever, using all 'tools and resources' can enable many to move forward in a way with minimal struggling. ~RR

08-15-2007, 03:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
Roadrunner Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,090	What works, works...what doesn't work doesn't work.... ~RR