Golden Window

[C-NICE]

Those sites are authored by bunch of Deaf zealots that were against CIs from the start. They were opposed to them from the start, the moment they were invented they were out to discredit them. They were prejudiced from the start.

 

[hoichi]

Anyone who has any use for a CI is organist to you. If you are such a moderate why does any info about them cause you to go right to how somrone's trying to assimilate people?

an organist...
interesting..

as for your second part, because thats exactly what CI and the combined system do..the very reason d'etre of CI is to assimilate, that's why they drill them into Deaf babies the first chance they get..

 

[C-NICE]

Here is a thought why don't you ask some of the CI users here how they work for them.

 

[hoichi]

You say you want to grow the community. If people and the parents of CIs kids are going to get this gruff from deafies like yourself who would even want to bother?

look man
i fi told you i was a black man, someone here would correct me
im not black, im not...

if i told you here i was a lesbian women, some would correct me, im not a lesbian women, im just not...

now

im not sure why thats such a hard idea to grasp....
the doc you have a love in for, is NOT Deaf he is not,

sorry to break it to you...

 

[hoichi]

Here is a thought why don't you ask some of the CI users here how they work for them.

ive never claimed Ci doesn't work for anyone so....

 

[C-NICE]

an organist...
interesting..

as for your second part, because thats exactly what CI and the combined system do..the very reason d'etre of CI is to assimilate, that's why they drill them into Deaf babies the first chance they get..

Your just as much of an assimilationist as they are. The Deaf babies belong to you, and the hearies have no rights.

 

[C-NICE]

This man's invention has 30nyears going for it. It would kill you to give his the slightest bit of recognition.

an organist...
interesting..

 

[hoichi]

It does not cause any harm.

that is a statement of a zealot,

I
You just can't stand that those kids are not in the Deaf World with you.

engage people's actual statements, and not what yoru psychic ability may or may not tell you of what they may or may not like.

It is all about the Deaf world and what some its members not being Alberto handle that the future is now the present.

again engage in people's actual statements and not what yoru magickal gifts of mind reading may or may not tell you what people can handle or not.

I
To use the Jewish analogy some people will never be able to handle Isreal's independence. Those numbers you keep referencing are only to push your anti-CI agenda.

this only demonstrates your the zealot..

as to isreal,
what do you would think israel and jewish people as a whole would feel if the very same practices used on deaf babaie sand children where used on them so that they don't revert back to being jew?

 

[hoichi]

Your just as much of an assimilationist as they are. The Deaf babies belong to you, and the hearies have no rights.

not at all
unless your claiming nature is an assimilationist, i and others, the vast majority of our culture and people actually, want deaf babies to have their natural language , the mode they naturally use, from birth,,,that's what we want...

Deaf have a birth right sign
they have a right to be Deaf

whats wrong with that?

 

[hoichi]

This man's invention has 30nyears going for it. It would kill you to give his the slightest bit of recognition.

first of all it wasn't just his invention, different people were working on it in different nations. if you actually would educate yourself on the history you would knwo it was a team effort that crossed industries in the march for its development and implementation.


havign stated that
given the amount of my posts that are on this very topic, its very clear i do recognize exactly what he and others have done, and give him and others pleny t and plenty and plenty of recognition

after all this isnt some creep product loyalty fetish cult with me.....

this is about my people and culture and language..

 

[hoichi]

Those sites are authored by bunch of Deaf zealots that were against CIs from the start. They were opposed to them from the start, the moment they were invented they were out to discredit them. They were prejudiced from the start.

which cites?
im curious which of any of the work si cited for you you have actually even read?
so how do you even knwo they are Deaf or zealots?

yes minority cultures almost always are opposed to majority others policies of assimilation in regards to the minorities children and denying of their language.....
yes


indeed
that is almost always true...

we are NO different.

 

[ambrosia]

Harm to the children.

From what I've been able gather, Jezie and Hoichi, you guys have gotten most of your info, and cites, from that Paper you posted about reducing harm from cochlear implants.

I wonder if you've really checked their sources. Firstly, the article was published in 2010 and most of their study sources are from the 90s. Yes, time is relevant especially when discussing a procedure that is always advancing. I didn't check the entire article. It became quickly clear that it's largely useless.

First we have their claim that "a significant number of these children do not communicate with ease in a speech only environment even after years of rehabilitative training". Then they have this long list of sources, with links to them. Now most of them just had the abstract, which btw is the most informationless part of the study, you have to pay to get the actual study. But they did have dates, most of which was from 1994-1997. A couple from 200 and 2001. One which couldn't even be found so it's probably been redacted. The ones that DID have the entire study available actually didn't even support their statement. So basically they're cherry picking parts of studies. Mostly the conclusion was the opposite, that the long the implant was worn, the earlier age of implantation and shockingly being in an oral only environment.

For example..... The most recent source they had cited to support that statement was a study from 2011. It was a study that only involved 10 children (yes size matters in studies) and it concluded with "More over the average language development rate of subjects in the first year of device use was equivalent to that of children with normal hearing.

Next. Right after claiming that a significant number of CI kids cannot communicate with ease they say "even those successful individuals demonstrate some cognitive difficulties". Then they cite 3 sources. The first source is about the fatigue that hard of hearing and deaf people experience trying to communicate with the hearing. Great point, BUT the study didn't even involve CI kids Hahahaha it was children with mild to moderate hearing loss.

Sorry, but these are HUGE red flags for this paper and calls into question the validity of anything they have to say.

 

[hoichi]

Harm to the children.

From what I've been able gather, Jezie and Hoichi, you guys have gotten most of your info, and cites, from that Paper you posted about reducing harm from cochlear implants.

thats not true, i posted more than one paper and article, im curious which ones have you read to make this claim?

I wonder if you've really checked their sources. Firstly, the article was published in 2010 and most of their study sources are from the 90s. I didn't check the entire article. It became quickly clear that it's largely useless.

which article are you referring too?
as for checking sources i most certainly do, unlike you, i even read the bibliographies, i enjoy this type of thing...

how about you?
which sources have you read?

First we have their claim that "a significant number of these children do not communicate with ease in a speech only environment even after years of rehabilitative training". Then they have this long list of sources, with links to them. Now most of them just had the abstract, which btw is the most informationless part of the study, you have to pay to get the actual study. But they did have dates, most of which was from 1994-1997. A couple from 200 and 2001. One which couldn't even be found so it's probably been redacted. The ones that DID have the entire study available actually didn't even support their statement. So basically they're cherry picking parts of studies. Mostly the conclusion was the opposite, that the long the implant was worn, the earlier age of implantation and shockingly being in an oral only environment.

For example..... The most recent source they had cited to support that statement was a study from 2011. It was a study that only involved 10 children (yes size matters in studies) and it concluded with "More over the average language development rate of subjects in the first year of device use was equivalent to that of children with normal hearing..

which study are you referring too?

Next. Right after claiming that a significant number of CI kids cannot communicate with ease they say "even those successful individuals demonstrate some cognitive difficulties". Then they cite 3 sources. The first source is about the fatigue that hard of hearing and deaf people experience trying to communicate with the hearing. Great point, BUT the study didn't even involve CI kids Hahahaha it was children with mild to moderate hearing loss.

Sorry, but these are HUGE red flags for this paper and calls into question the validity of anything they have to say.

which paper?

 

[ambrosia]

thats not true, i posted more than one paper and article, im curious which ones have you read to make this claim?





which article are you referring too?
as for checking sources i most certainly do, unlike you, i even read the bibliographies, i enjoy this type of thing...

how about you?
which sources have you read?




which study are you referring too?






which paper?

The Paper in question, which you didn't post Jezie did but she's the one hounding C-Nice currently about harm, not you.......but still it's he one I'm sure you two have gotten a lot of your info from.

http://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-9-16

But most of my comments have to do with their source materials, their citations, that they've cherry picked from and don't support their claims.

But seriously you want to know exactly which one? Their first source to support their claim that even CI kids that are successful have cognitive difficulties is this......http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1780935

The fact that they're using THAT study, one that doesn't even involve CIs calls into question the entire article. Lots of red flags with their source material but that one was without doubt the most questionable.

 

[hoichi]

The Paper in question, which you didn't post Jezie did but she's the one hounding C-Nice currently about harm, not you......

im curious
are you also claiming CI has caused no harm and do not cause any harm like cnice?

.but still it's he one I'm sure you two have gotten a lot of your info from.

http://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-9-16

how many of the cites that i have provided to you in this and other threads have you read to make this claim?

But most of my comments have to do with their source materials, their citations, that they've cherry picked from and don't support their claims.

coming from you this is a very interesting statement..

But seriously you want to know exactly which one?

i wouldn't of asked i f i didnt want to know....

Their first source to support their claim that even CI kids that are successful have cognitive difficulties is this......http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1780935

im looking forward to reading it...

The fact that they're using THAT study, one that doesn't even involve CIs calls into question the entire article. Lots of red flags with their source material but that one was without doubt the most questionable.

have i used this study?

interesting as i have not even read the studies you are claiming i base my remarks on...

i had to ask you then had to look at the cites to see which you were refering too, gimme a few.... to read them..at least then you can claim i base all my opposition on them (rolls eyes)

at least

let me read them first...
is that ok with you?

since we are on who read what.....i'm curious
which sources have you read that i have provided to you in this and other threads?
(don't answer, its for others reading,,,we know....)

 

[ambrosia]

Most of their source material was pretty damn old, like 15+years old, even the paper itself is 6 years old but it there was some interesting things in it. Like their sources for the huge variability of results, basically all those sources were like yes, hugely variable but it's unknown why yet. One was a study about how the different individuals brains are organized and maybe that's why there's such variations, but it was only the abstract so there was no conclusions, study size, methods, anything like that.

There's probably more recent info out there. I'd like to see one on how various other problems a kid might have besides their hearing effects their results.

But I got called in to work......later

 

[ambrosia]

im curious
are you also claiming CI has caused no harm and do not cause any harm like cnice?





how many of the cites that i have proved to you in this and other threads have you read to make this claim?




coming from you this is a very interesting statement..

No, not at all. The paper just calls into question the depths and widths if that harm, just HOW many. They skewed their info.

Like CI companies may exaggerate the benefits, those people exaggerated the harms. They both have their agendas, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Jezie]

The Paper in question, which you didn't post Jezie did but she's the one hounding C-Nice currently about harm, not you.......but still it's he one I'm sure you two have gotten a lot of your info from.

http://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-9-16

But most of my comments have to do with their source materials, their citations, that they've cherry picked from and don't support their claims.

But seriously you want to know exactly which one? Their first source to support their claim that even CI kids that are successful have cognitive difficulties is this......http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1780935

The fact that they're using THAT study, one that doesn't even involve CIs calls into question the entire article. Lots of red flags with their source material but that one was without doubt the most questionable.

Hmm I am not saying I did or did not post this, too busy right now... but I did a search for the text and only your post came up... can you quote me please... only polite and all...

 

[hoichi]

No, not at all. The paper just calls into question the depths and widths if that harm, just HOW many. They skewed their info.

who is they?

Like CI companies may exaggerate the benefits, those people exaggerated the harms. They both have their agendas, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

so CI companies "may" exaggerate the benefits, but those who are the vast majority in our culture who oppose prelingual implants we, ist not just "may: we actually according to you we very much do....

OIC..

how is it.....you....a non Deaf, someone who doesn't knwo our language, nor is a part of our culture, is not one of us, does not live amongst us, know us, seem to have it in your head that you can make claims as to what we believe or hold or do? or think?

your a blue eyed blond girl,,,,can you try this trick on a black board?
can i try your trick on a women's board?



who is exaggerating harm?
perhaps your dismissing it.....

let me ask you another question in regards to harm, which in your eyes would be the greatest harm caused?


interesting...
so now you have gone from claiming i base all my opposition on 2 papers i have not read, to now telling me whats in the very papers mere minutes ago you were so adamant i based my opposition on?

you flip flop more then a politician girl...

thats one reason why reading sources in a given field you know very little about is important.....'-)


so keeping with the spirit of things...
let me ask you another question
which of the sources that i have provided to you in this and other threads have you read?

 

[C-NICE]

how is it.....you....a non Deaf, someone who doesn't knwo our language, nor is a part of our culture, is not one of us

So only those who part of your culture get to have a viewpoint. How democratic?