Does AD need an Audism policy?

[Banjo]

I would say no, as I'm sure certain posters (who ever they are) could eventually get banned for other reasons.

Everyones perception of audism is different, and in my first weeks posting here I was labeled an audist because I chose to use SEE/English with my son to start.

I am the farthest thing from an Audist, and I had to step away from AD for a period of time because the name calling was sucking the life out of me...and I am a strong woman. So no, I am against censorship and against banning people because one or some refer to a poster as an audist when in all reality they are not.

I'm not saying there isn't one audist on here (IDK), but what a loser they would be to hang out on a deaf forum if they think little to nothing of deaf individuals.

If I recall correctly, it had nothing to do with audism. It was your defensive attitude that got you in trouble. You made an announcement to the world that SEE is in fact, a language. People disagreed with your opinion, and that was when you got defensive. You couldn't agree to disagree. Seems like you still can't get your mind around that.

Besides, I don't believe it is necessary to ban people over audism.

 

[CSign]

If I recall correctly, it had nothing to do with audism. It was your defensive attitude that got you in trouble. You made an announcement to the world that SEE is in fact, a language. People disagreed with your opinion, and that was when you got defensive. You couldn't agree to disagree. Seems like you still can't get your mind around that.

Besides, I don't believe it is necessary to ban people over audism.

Yes, the title of the thread could/should have been different. My point was that SEE when used properly is a representation of the English language. I conceded the point that SEE itself was not a language in the first page or two of the thread.

I was not defensive. I responded to questions and comments in an effort to express my experience with it, which had been a positive one.

 

[Tousi]

Yes, the title of the thread could/should have been different. My point was that SEE when used properly is a representation of the English language. I conceded the point that SEE itself was not a language in the first page or two of the thread.

I was not defensive. I responded to questions and comments in an effort to express my experience with it, which had been a positive one.

I wasn't really engaged in that one but your response immediately above sounds fair enough.

 

[Bottesini]

Yes, the title of the thread could/should have been different. My point was that SEE when used properly is a representation of the English language. I conceded the point that SEE itself was not a language in the first page or two of the thread.

I was not defensive. I responded to questions and comments in an effort to express my experience with it, which had been a positive one.

But all works out eventually. You understood what people were trying to tell you, and now with luck there won't be anymore fights or anyone trying to stir up another one.

 

[Banjo]

Yes, the title of the thread could/should have been different. My point was that SEE when used properly is a representation of the English language. I conceded the point that SEE itself was not a language in the first page or two of the thread.

I was not defensive. I responded to questions and comments in an effort to express my experience with it, which had been a positive one.

That's not how I recall it, nor would many members here at AllDeaf.

 

[CSign]

Okay, well go ahead and re-read the thread then. As I said, I conceded in the first page or two about SEE itself not being a language.

 

[GrendelQ]

I thought csign's post was referring to see as a signed mode of the English language, and not as a separate language.

 

[TheOracle]

I thought csign's post was referring to see as a signed mode of the English language, and not as a separate language.

That's how I took it. Maybe some people are more sensitive to certain kinds of language? Anyway...even if it were the case (csign saying it was ASL or a separate language) I still think there's a way to address it.

 

[GrendelQ]

That's how I took it. Maybe some people are more sensitive to certain kinds of language? Anyway...even if it were the case (csign saying it was ASL or a separate language) I still think there's a way to address it.

discussion, not crushing?

 

[TheOracle]

discussion, not crushing?

I was talking to a AD-er about "tone" and it seems to me that those who hear or have late onset deafness have a different "tone" on here that is seen as "normal" by other hearies, but lifetime deafies misread it. And vice versa.

Makes sense, considering the "audio" bunch would "hear" things the way they read it...?

So yes. Discuss.

 

[CSign]

That's how I took it. Maybe some people are more sensitive to certain kinds of language? Anyway...even if it were the case (csign saying it was ASL or a separate language) I still think there's a way to address it.

For the sake of clarity for others who didn't read the thread, I never said SEE was ASL. I have been well aware for many years the difference between ASL and English.

I absolutely agree that differences in opinion can be expressed without attacking them and putting them down. A person can make there point without insulting others.

 

[TheOracle]

For the sake of clarity for others who didn't read the thread, I never said SEE was ASL. I have been well aware for many years the difference between ASL and English.

I absolutely agree that differences in opinion can be expressed without attacking them and putting them down. A person can make there point without insulting others.

<3 Yes, I meant, even if you did...but you didn't. It's all bueno. pshaw. dust in the wind.