Reply from Tom Willard
I just learned of this thread and would like to share a few comments.
It is inaccurate for Tayler to describe my posting as an obituary. An obituary is filled with biographical information about the person who died. My posting was about my mom's passing and her reaction to my hearing loss in earier years, and it included a link to my photo exhibit about the years in which I slowly became deaf. It certainly does fall within the DeafRead guidelines.
While it is true that Tayler tried to backpedal after sending me his one-word email saying "No," it reminds me of Don Imus backpedaling after his "nappy-headed hos" comment. It is the first comment that one remembers, not the lame attempts afterwards to repair the damage.
I've been an editor for 35 years and I would never dream of responding with a one-word "No" to someone who asks me to share something with my readers. If I have to say no, I would take the time to explain. I found Tayler's response to be rude, cold, callous, insensitive and indefensible. And I had no qualms about sharing his response with others (despite his retort that I was "shooting myself in the foot") because people should know how he behaves.
Personally, I find many of the postings on DeafRead to be incredibly boring. There is way too much emphasis on Gallaudet University, and I feel the editors show too much favoritism. For example, what is the fascination with Carl Schroeder? He seems to have several postings every day. Why does he think the world wants to know his thoughts on everything and anything, and why do the DeafRead editors agree?
Incidentally, I was advised to share my feedback with the DeafRead editors. I did so, and not a single one had the common courtesy to respond. That only gave me an even worse impression of DeafRead.
It's interesting to note that my posting was clicked on more than 1,700 times after I mailed my note to Deafweekly readers and I received over 100 emails in response. It's obvious that people wanted to read it, thus I continue to feel that DeafRead was wrong to reject it.
I hope this will be a learning experience for the DeafRead editors, who strike me as inexperienced and overly cliquey.