Cochlear recalls Nucleus CI500

Also post #1592. Apparently my response was censored, but remained in a post by Sallylou.
 
GrendelQ said:
Wow, more questions from you?

Answer: I'm not.

Which is it: do you want to criticize me for saying there are more deaf/hoh who use English than ASL based on the statements of deaf people without providing studies to back it up, or do you want to criticize me for being fixated on studies and data instead of basing my statements on the words of deaf people? Does it screw with your goal when I say i want to utilize both?
Click to expand...

I am criticizing anybody who keep being combative with any deafies when we have lifetime of experience and ya'all don't. For heaven's sake.... ya'all just got started! I fail to understand as to why all of you act like you're well-informed and got it all figured out when we are the living proof of it.

Why are you concerned with whether or not if deafie will be proficient in English depending on which path you take? That is of no concern to me. What's a concern to me is parents not providing ASL to deaf children.

Now before you go on miles-long rampage, this post does not largely apply to you because you are already providing ASL to your kid so calm down.
 
Jiro said:
I am criticizing anybody who keep being combative with any deafies when we have lifetime of experience and ya'all don't. For heaven's sake.... ya'all just got started! I fail to understand as to why all of you act like you're well-informed and got it all figured out when we are the living proof of it.

Why are you concerned with whether or not if deafie will be proficient in English depending on which path you take? That is of no concern to me. What's a concern to me is parents not providing ASL to deaf children.

Now before you go on miles-long rampage, this post does not largely apply to you because you are already providing ASL to your kid so calm down.
Click to expand...

So just to clarify and understand your position. You don't find it necessary or important to be proficient in English?

If that's the case, that makes sense why you don't align with the use of SEE to help DHH students acquire English.
 
CSign said:
So just to clarify and understand your position. You don't find it necessary or important to be proficient in English?

If that's the case, that makes sense why you don't align with the use of SEE to help DHH students acquire English.
Click to expand...

THat is another story. SEE is cumbersome in the brain processing. You can FEEL it.
 
CSign said:
So just to clarify and understand your position. You don't find it necessary or important to be proficient in English?

If that's the case, that makes sense why you don't align with the use of SEE to help DHH students acquire English.
Click to expand...

What an outrageous accusation.

It is absolutely important for the child to be proficient in both American Sign Language and English. No one is saying that children shouldn't be taught English.

People here are saying that SEE shouldn't be used to teach English due to its limitations. It is not a language.
 
CSign said:
So just to clarify and understand your position. You don't find it necessary or important to be proficient in English?

If that's the case, that makes sense why you don't align with the use of SEE to help DHH students acquire English.
Click to expand...

*sigh*.... how tiring...

Like I said - it's of no concern to me because learning ASL first does not interfere with children learning English. Why? because this logic ultimately fails especially for immigrant children.

My main priority concern is to enable deaf children to have an effective mode of communication with their parents and family. They do not learn to read and write English first... All kids learn to COMMUNICATE with their parents first!

I do not align with the use of SEE because it's NOT a language. It's a broken language. I do not support learning broken language. ASL does not interfere with kids learning English but SEE does interfere with kids learning ASL.

Let me ask you this - have you seen how many of us deafies ditched SEE for ASL and our reasons for it?
 
Jiro said:
*sigh*.... how tiring...

Like I said - it's of no concern to me because learning ASL first does not interfere with children learning English. Why? because this logic ultimately fails especially for immigrant children.

Main priority is to enable deaf children an effective mode of communication. They do not learn to read and write English first... All kids learn to COMMUNICATE with their parents first!

I do not align with the use of SEE because it's NOT a language. It's a broken language. I do not support learning broken language. ASL does not interfere with kids learning English but SEE does interfere with kids learning ASL.

Let me ask you this - have you seen how many of us deafies ditched SEE for ASL and our reasons for it?
Click to expand...

Anyone have a torch? We need to melt the lead wall down.
 
Banjo said:
What an outrageous accusation.

It is absolutely important for the child to be proficient in both American Sign Language and English. No one is saying that children shouldn't be taught English.

People here are saying that SEE shouldn't be used to teach English due to its limitations. It is not a language.
Click to expand...

Did you read what he wrote?
 
Now the thread will be about SEE?

Lawd have mercy!!

I guess we can call it the "SEE I" Thread. :roll:
 
Jiro said:
I do not align with the use of SEE because it's NOT a language. It's a broken language. I do not support learning broken language. ASL does not interfere with kids learning English but SEE does interfere with kids learning ASL.

Let me ask you this - have you seen how many of us deafies ditched SEE for ASL and our reasons for it?
Click to expand...

SEE is not broken English, it is a mode of English. When used properly it can and does represent the English language in it's entirety. Did you read that study Jiro? Lots of relevant information there that supports everything I've said since I started participating here.

Here is a link to the study:
http://docs.docstoc.com/pdf/2645615/8c1c850e-fb2a-4ba5-81aa-c41251540ef7.pdf

Here is a link to the thread I started to discuss the findings:
http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-education/95121-importance-morphemic-awareness-reading- achievement.html

I was able to communicate effectively with my son from day one, so that is and was not a concern.
 
Jiro said:
did you read what WE wrote about SEE? we used to sign in SEE, you know?
Click to expand...

Actually I've never read that you learned SEE as a child. I thought you said you were raised Oral?

Makes sense though, to transition to ASL as you got older. It's the logical step to take.
 
CSign said:
SEE is not broken English, it is a mode of English. When used properly it can and does represent the English language in it's entirety. Did you read that study Jiro? Lots of relevant information there that supports everything I've said since I started participating here.

Here is a link to the study:

http://docs.docstoc.com/pdf/2645615/8c1c850e-fb2a-4ba5-81aa-c41251540ef7.pdf

Here is a link to the thread I started to discuss the findings:

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-education/95121-importance-morphemic-awareness-reading-achievement.html

I was able to communicate effectively with my son from day one, so that is and was not a concern.


Also SEE
Click to expand...

the studies did not match up with the reality. we're real human being right here. we are not lab rats or statistic for studies.

so... I ask again - did you read why we ditched SEE for ASL?
 
CSign said:
Actually I've never read that you learned SEE as a child. I thought you said you were raised Oral?

Makes sense though, to transition to ASL as you got older. It's the logical step to take.
Click to expand...

what? I can't make any sense with your post.
 
CSign said:
Why don't we view that comment in the context it was used, shall we?
Click to expand...

Yes, lets !!

(Even though your post was deleted about green brownies, it shows up in others' posts.) The context was about deaf issues, same as this thread.

Thank you for making my point. :)
 
CSign said:
Actually I've never read that you learned SEE as a child. I thought you said you were raised Oral?

Makes sense though, to transition to ASL as you got older. It's the logical step to take.
Click to expand...

goddamn, not this shit again.

The reason we chose ASL later in life is because we were not afforded to earlier in life.

The transition from SEE to ASL SUCKS. It is one of the biggest reasons people get uncomfortable in their journey to the deaf world.

And Jiro was speaking WE as in the deaf community collective. Not him himself. Don't misread him.
 
Babyblue said:
Now the thread will be about SEE?

Lawd have mercy!!

I guess we can call it the "SEE I" Thread. :roll:
Click to expand...

Just to clarify BabyBlue- SEE 1 isn't really used anymore. That's why "SEE 2" is now just referred to as SEE. The link I provided adresses that.
 
AlleyCat said:
Yes, lets !!

(Even though your post was deleted about green brownies, it shows up in others' posts.) The context was about deaf issues, same as this thread.

Thank you for making my point. :)
Click to expand...

We have two different points being made. The posts speak for themselves.
 
CSign said:
Just to clarify BabyBlue- SEE 1 isn't really used anymore. That's why "SEE 2" is now just referred to as SEE. The link I provided adresses that.
Click to expand...

reading it too literally.... BabyBlue is not referring to SEE 1... She said SEE I, not SEE 1 (one)... meaning.... "SEE PART I" Thread
 
CSign said:
Just to clarify BabyBlue- SEE 1 isn't really used anymore. That's why "SEE 2" is now just referred to as SEE. The link I provided adresses that.
Click to expand...

I didn't read your link because I dislike SEE in any form. And I doubt these who dislike SEE read it either.

Links and researches by hearing people... Not surprising.
 
Back
Top