Some thoughts? - Page 5

**Jiro** · 02-15-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

I would much rather the Deaf community speak for themselves, yes. Why should I assume that the majority agree with a lone hearing poster. I would like to see the information they have, and where they draw their conclusions from, not her's.

but a fellow deaf teacher has agreed with Jillio. and deaf posters have agreed with them too. but what about you? what do you know about the injustices and difficulty that deafies go thru? Do you have years of in-depth experience of it?

I'm not attacking you but just bringing up the point.

jillio · 02-15-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

I would much rather the Deaf community speak for themselves, yes. Why should I assume that the majority agree with a lone hearing poster. I would like to see the information they have, and where they draw their conclusions from, not her's.

The members of this board have plenty of information, and they draw their conclusions from years of real life experience. You don't seem to want to accept that, as you are still arguing about it. I support their life experience with empirical evidence that gives validity to what they are saying. You, on the other hand, do not support them at all, and attempt to use the conclusions you have drawn as a hearing parent to refute what they are saying to you.
'
You don't need to assume that the majority of the deaf posters here agree with my positions regarding language development and education regarding deaf children. They have already shown you, through numerous posts, that they do agree with me. No need to assume anything, as it has been spelled out for you very succinctly.

***naisho*** · 02-15-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

I would much rather the Deaf community speak for themselves, yes. Why should I assume that the majority agree with a lone hearing poster. I would like to see the information they have, and where they draw their conclusions from, not her's.

Well, okay then. I think we can make that happen. I can foresee and tell you, it'll be a very different air once it happens.

jillio, if you can handle it..
I hereby verbally ban you from replying in this topic created by faire_jour for the time being. More of a mental ban, faire wants opinions from _us_ deafies ONRY

.

faire_jour · 02-15-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

Closed minded?

So if someone doesn't agree with your views they are automatically closed minded?

What makes you think that you are not the one that is being closed minded.

I'm far from closed minded. I have always listened to professionals, the Deaf community, educators and other parents of deaf children.

Does anyone here even know my opinions of Deaf education? Obviously I advocate ASL and bi-bi education, why else would my own child be using them?

rick48 · 02-15-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not at all. And you have no idea what you would have done in my shoes, as you have never been in my shoes.

Gee, but that has never stopped you from judging other parents on this board, especially those who have made the decision to give their children cochlear implants. I guess along with your self-proclaimed "honorary title" you have conferred special powers upon yourself.

You might want to try walking a mile in someone else's shoes before complaining about others doing so in yours.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

INTEREST RENEWED: Breaking ground during the early 1900’s

The initial optimism surrounding the bioelectrical approaches to cure deafness was followed by a period of skepticism as the applications appeared to be invasive and required ongoing critical evaluation. However, in the 1930’s, interest was renewed in the problem of reproducing hearing artificially. This coincided with the introduction of the thermionic valve, which allowed for the auditory system to be stimulated electrically with significantly greater precision.

History of Cochlear Implants

faire_jour · 02-15-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but a fellow deaf teacher has agreed with Jillio. and deaf posters have agreed with them too. but what about you? what do you know about the injustices and difficulty that deafies go thru? Do you have years of in-depth experience of it?

I'm not attacking you but just bringing up the point.

I have never lived it. I have the same experience as Jillio, that of the parent of a Deaf child and that which has been told to me by others.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

The work of Wever and Bray (1930) demonstrated that the electrical response recorded form the vicinity of the auditory nerve of a cat was similar in frequency and amplitude to the sounds to which the ear had been exposed. Meanwhile, the Russian investigators Gersuni and Volokhov in 1936 examined the effects of an alternating electrical stimulus on hearing. They found that hearing could persist following the surgical removal of the tympanic membrane and ossicles, and thus hypothesized that the cochlea was the site of stimulation

History of Cochlear Implants

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

I have never lived it. I have the same experience as Jillio, that of the parent of a Deaf child and that which has been told to me by others.

In your case short experience. And you don't seem listening to any of us.

Babyblue · 02-15-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

I'm far from closed minded. I have always listened to professionals, the Deaf community, educators and other parents of deaf children.

Does anyone here even know my opinions of Deaf education? Obviously I advocate ASL and bi-bi education, why else would my own child be using them?

Then why all the post of oral approach only??

Just to stir up people goats?

Being Malicious? To be different, to draw attention to yourself?

Sounds ridiculous that you would post such in this forum to be hypocritical.

jillio · 02-15-2009, 04:48 PM

You got it...I will now bow out and let the Deafies speak. Faire_jour, try listening for a change.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Another set of researchers, Stevens and Jones (1939), thought that electrical could be transduced into sound vibrations before it reached the inner year. Hearing induced in this way has been called the electrophonic effect. They were able to determine whether a linear or non-linear transducer was involved by the presence and strength of the overtones, which were detected when the subject heard beats. The studies by Stevens and Jones (1939), as well as Jones et al (1940) indicated that when the cochlea was stimulated electrically, there were three mechanisms, which produced hearing:

1. The middle ear could act as a transducer, which obeys the ‘square law’ and convert alternations in the strength of an electrical field into the mechanical vibrations that produce sound.

2. Electrical energy could be converted into sound by a direct effect on the basilar membrane, which would then vibrate maximally at a point determined by the frequency and these vibrations would stimulate the hair cells

3. Direct stimulation of the auditory nerve produced a crude hearing sensation.

Their conclusions were basically correct, although now other body tissues have been shown to act as transducers

History of Cochlear Implants

faire_jour · 02-15-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bottesini

History of Cochlear Implants

Ok, this site has at least one factual error. It says 1980 as the FDA guideline change, that is not true, as I have shown. I don't know about the other information, whether it is accurate or not.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Ok, this site has at least one factual error. It says 1980 as the FDA guideline change, that is not true, as I have shown. I don't know about the other information, whether it is accurate or not.

It is from Brown University. They have sort of a good reputation.

ncff07 · 02-15-2009, 04:51 PM

if i may post here, growing up hard of hearing in the hearing world communicating by hearing only made it tough. even now as its gotten worse its tough and i have been held back by my hearing loss. thinking back now how it was then, i would have liked to have had sign language involved as well as speaking and i think it would have helped to have both ways to communicate instead of being labeled as "special ed" which made it worse since i just wasnt able to understand hearing wise not comprehension wise.

i think what it boils down to and what everyone wants is what is best for the child. both now and when they grow up. and to give them ALL the tools and skills they need early to succeed and accel in the world when they grow up either it be the hearing world or the deaf world and then they can decide what is the best for them and what to do.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

A wealth of research in the 1940’s and 1950’s into the mechanisms involved in electrophonic hearing indicated that hearing is produced by transducing electrical energy into sound vibrations and that residual cochlear function is also required. It became apparent that total perception deafness could not be corrected by inducing a widespread electrical filed in the region of cochlea. Instead, a more localized stimulation of the auditory nerve fibers is required.

History of Cochlear Implants

**Jiro** · 02-15-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Gee, but that has never stopped you from judging other parents on this board, especially those who have made the decision to give their children cochlear implants. I guess along with your self-proclaimed "honorary title" you have conferred special powers upon yourself.

You might want to try walking a mile in someone else's shoes before complaining about others doing so in yours.

well gee rick - maybe if you calm down and actually read word by word... you would see that Jillio is NOT talking about pitting against CI. Shel and Jillio have REPEATEDLY showed you that ORAL-FIRST approach is wrong and oxymoronic.

If you want to get a CI. fine. HA, fine. point is - the oral-first approach was wrong and we deafies have posted our life stories about the result of oral-first approach.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

In 1964, Doyle et al., reported inserting an array of electrodes into the cochlea of a patient with total perceptive deafness. The electrodes were designed to limit the spread of the electrical field and were stimulated in sequence with threshold square waves that were superimposed with speech signals. The four electrodes were not especially implanted to take advantage of the spatial distribution of the auditory nerve fibers responding to different frequencies, and the result obtained was only satisfactory. However, it was significant that the patient was able to repeat phrases.

History of Cochlear Implants

**deafskeptic** · 02-15-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but a fellow deaf teacher has agreed with Jillio. and deaf posters have agreed with them too. but what about you? what do you know about the injustices and difficulty that deafies go thru? Do you have years of in-depth experience of it?

I'm not attacking you but just bringing up the point.

As jiro says, there are tons of posts by deaf agreeing with jillio. He has some excellent questions you'd do well to answer to yourself.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

RAPID PROGRESS: The commercial marketing of Cochlear Implants

In 1972, a speech processor was developed to interface with the House 3M single-electrode implant and was the first to be commercially marketed. More than 1,000 of these devices were implanted between 1972 to the mid 1980s. In 1980, the age criteria for use of this device was lowered from 18 to 2 years. ). During the 1980’s, several hundred children had been implanted with the House 3M single channel device.

If you can read this it is talking about the House 3M single electrode implant.

It is different from what was approved in 1990.

jillio · 02-15-2009, 04:57 PM

In 1980, the age criteria for use of this device were lowered from 18 to 2 years and several hundred children were subsequently implanted. During the late 70s, work was also being done in Australia, where Clark and colleagues were developing a multi-channel cochlear implant later to be known as the Cochlear Nucleus Freedom.

FDA guidelines CI 1980 - Google Search capabilities compared to House’s single-channel device.

Sorry, I just cannot allow mistaken information to go uncorrected. Bott's site was correct.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:57 PM

I see bunches of us from deaf schools and mainstream schools, oral only, total communication, ASL, all telling you about the same thing.

You just don't seem to notice.

Bebonang · 02-15-2009, 04:57 PM

So does that mean that we are close minded Deaf people who refuse to use CI and speak in an oral only environment in the classroom settings without interpreters? I know you said that you sign ASL and your daughter is in a ASL school. But you seem to be obsess on her hearing with the CI and get her to speak better, like as if it is a miracle which it is not so. You are dreaming like many hearing parents and so are many hearing Audists wanting so much to have Deaf children to hear and speak perfectly. This is a cop-out. You do not know what we have been put through whether we have hearing aids or CI. It just does not work that way. What I can not stand is to have the Audists put us back in the mainstream school with no ASL and no ASL interpreters like being back in the 1940s to 1970s. We have been frustrated very long time with oral only method and we just don't like it not one bit. That is our experience when we try to tell the hearing people about our problem, not to fix us. Just leave us the way we are and let us strive what we know how to respond in the Deaf education classroom, not in the hearing classrooms. You just don't get it. I feel sorry for you when you don't understand why we are fighting for our rights as Deaf people. You are just as blind as the rest of the hearing parents.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

In 1980, the age criteria for use of this device were lowered from 18 to 2 years and several hundred children were subsequently implanted. During the late 70s, work was also being done in Australia, where Clark and colleagues were developing a multi-channel cochlear implant later to be known as the Cochlear Nucleus Freedom.

FDA guidelines CI 1980 - Google Search capabilities compared to House’s single-channel device.

Sorry, I just cannot allow mistaken information to go uncorrected. Bott's site was correct.

Thank you.

**Jiro** · 02-15-2009, 04:58 PM

bott!

**deafskeptic** · 02-15-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

bott!

ditto here!

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

bott!

too! A lot.

**Bottesini** · 02-15-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

ditto here!

faire_jour · 02-15-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

Then why all the post of oral approach only??

Just to stir up people goats?

Being Malicious? To be different, to draw attention to yourself?

Sounds ridiculous that you would post such in this forum to be hypocritical.

Because, people here say, everyday, that ASL or being in a bi-bi school does not impede speech development. Here is a study that would suggest otherwise. Instead of people reading it, offering other facts for the otherside, I am attacked and called an audist.

faire_jour · 02-15-2009, 05:02 PM

I have seen the information stated as 1990 from several sources.

02-15-2009, 04:57 PM	#142 (permalink)
Bottesini Joe's Friend Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: With Owl Sock Posts: 37,517 Blog Entries: 1	I see bunches of us from deaf schools and mainstream schools, oral only, total communication, ASL, all telling you about the same thing. You just don't seem to notice. __________________

02-15-2009, 04:57 PM	#143 (permalink)
Bebonang Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Manitoulin Island on Lake Huron in Canada Posts: 7,009	So does that mean that we are close minded Deaf people who refuse to use CI and speak in an oral only environment in the classroom settings without interpreters? I know you said that you sign ASL and your daughter is in a ASL school. But you seem to be obsess on her hearing with the CI and get her to speak better, like as if it is a miracle which it is not so. You are dreaming like many hearing parents and so are many hearing Audists wanting so much to have Deaf children to hear and speak perfectly. This is a cop-out. You do not know what we have been put through whether we have hearing aids or CI. It just does not work that way. What I can not stand is to have the Audists put us back in the mainstream school with no ASL and no ASL interpreters like being back in the 1940s to 1970s. We have been frustrated very long time with oral only method and we just don't like it not one bit. That is our experience when we try to tell the hearing people about our problem, not to fix us. Just leave us the way we are and let us strive what we know how to respond in the Deaf education classroom, not in the hearing classrooms. You just don't get it. I feel sorry for you when you don't understand why we are fighting for our rights as Deaf people. You are just as blind as the rest of the hearing parents. __________________ I HAVE BEEN DEAF SINCE BIRTH, AND IT IS STILL AWESOME TO BE . (thumb up) (very happy)

02-15-2009, 04:58 PM	#145 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,435	bott! __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

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

02-15-2009, 04:48 PM	#131 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	You got it...I will now bow out and let the Deafies speak. Faire_jour, try listening for a change.

02-15-2009, 04:51 PM	#135 (permalink)
ncff07 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 1,586	if i may post here, growing up hard of hearing in the hearing world communicating by hearing only made it tough. even now as its gotten worse its tough and i have been held back by my hearing loss. thinking back now how it was then, i would have liked to have had sign language involved as well as speaking and i think it would have helped to have both ways to communicate instead of being labeled as "special ed" which made it worse since i just wasnt able to understand hearing wise not comprehension wise. i think what it boils down to and what everyone wants is what is best for the child. both now and when they grow up. and to give them ALL the tools and skills they need early to succeed and accel in the world when they grow up either it be the hearing world or the deaf world and then they can decide what is the best for them and what to do.

02-15-2009, 04:57 PM	#141 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	In 1980, the age criteria for use of this device were lowered from 18 to 2 years and several hundred children were subsequently implanted. During the late 70s, work was also being done in Australia, where Clark and colleagues were developing a multi-channel cochlear implant later to be known as the Cochlear Nucleus Freedom. FDA guidelines CI 1980 - Google Search capabilities compared to House’s single-channel device. Sorry, I just cannot allow mistaken information to go uncorrected. Bott's site was correct.

02-15-2009, 05:02 PM	#150 (permalink)
faire_jour Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,202	I have seen the information stated as 1990 from several sources.