Golden Window

[hoichi]

Your culturally Deaf and I'm not. You use that fact like a club. If you are example of the culturally Deaf today, I not too broken up about that fact.
i

NO thats not it at all,
its about boundaries. period.

if they are respected then their is no issue, the plm is they are ignored, dismissed and not taken for valid
that is the issue..

we are equal
our culture are equal and again i was born hearie,
i am Deaf

YOU need to get that we are equal.
before anything else.

 

[ambrosia]

this is NOT actually true.
if you hold this position for everything then nothing itself can be objective or close to it.
so fine having accepted yoru above statement then lets move on...

where does that lead?
back to square one...



this is not even part of the critique or our opposition, so its irrelevant really,






im curious why you would ignore a posted study in this thread, and then go to a long gone thread to get another study, yet ignore to even engage a study i posted in this thread?



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3072291/

further..and it is important here to understand

besides product loyalty, and religious conviction what is in this for you?

since your not one of us, your NOT Deaf, you don't know our language, not a part of our culture, don't really care about our ways, or ideas, or values,,,
im trying to figure this out..

only two other product lines i have encountered besides CI generates so much religious devotion, loyalty and cult like behaviour in its adherents..,

apple,,

and drugs...

its a strange thing...


im in this for my people and our children's future your in this to pitch products for the next steve jobs..(rolls eyes,) or who ever CI cult leaders picture you finger yourself with late at night...

anyway..
shrugs shoulders...
movin along..

You post post incessantly I don't actually read all of your posts.

Okay....your "study". It's not a study. It's an article, much like the one I was referring to earlier. In fact, the author and co author were contributors to the paper Jezie posted. So anyway, they didn't complete a study, they used other people work to try to back up their statements.

Again, they doing some of the things I referred to about the other, they spin stuff.

So she says at one point that parents are told oral only that sign is too easy. The citation for this bit was from a book from 1997, Deaf Politics of Deafness. Now I can't check that book and what context that was taken from but her source is almost 20 years old. So moving on.

At another point she says that 21% of CI kids get no speech. First of you will not see scientists making claims like that until you get into like meta studies. Her source was a study from 2007 (almost 10 years ago) 82 kids (that's smallish study size) all prelingually implanted kids. But all different ages, some even in college, so these kids have been implanted with the dinosaurs and some that have to have been implanted after the golden window anyway.....the conclusion of that particular study....
CONCLUSION: This long-term report shows that many profoundly hearing-impaired children using cochlear implants can develop functional levels of speech perception and production, attain age-appropriate oral language, develop competency level in a language other than their primary language, and achieve satisfactory academic performance.

Her citation to back up stating "having a high rate of communicative and educational problems"? A study that found that kids with CIs and hearing aids at Deaf schools are on equavilant reading levels.

But for the most part this whole article isn't anti prelingually cochlear implantation. It certainly doesn't back up that the majority of CI kids are harmed and not successful with CI. In fact at one point she says "research typically shows strong success with children implanted before 18 months and then she didn't say or cite anything to refute that.

If anything your article is pro ORAL, whether CI or ha, and sign. Which is exactly how feel sooooo thumbs up. Even though it's not really what you think it is. Thanks for backing up my opinion.

 

[hoichi]

You post post incessantly I don't actually read all of your posts.

nor much of anything else apparently

Y
Okay....your "study". It's not a study.

im well aware of that, ive read it,

Y
It's an article, much like the one I was referring to earlier. In fact, the author and co author were contributors to the paper Jezie posted. So anyway, they didn't complete a study, they used other people work to try to back up their statements.

yes that is done in academia...daily...

Y
Again, they doing some of the things I referred to about the other, they spin stuff.

then if this is the case, if no person can ever be objective then all the studies ever that go to show the usefulness of CI to the FDA and all government bodies are then useless..

is this what you want us to believe?
if so
then what claim does CI have? to pre lingually implant let alone post lingualy implant..no numbers after all can be trusted.. (oh i get it, only numbers from entities that back yoru cause can eb trusted, OIC)

if we cannot trust any study form any human being to be objective, everyone has an angle...

or
let me ask you a question.(not that you'll answer its more for others..)

do you think their exists standards in academic research? standards in certain modeling? standards in measurements? standards in how all those standards can be presented?

can any piece of data anyplace ever be trusted if everyone can never be objective?

Y
So she says at one point that parents are told oral only that sign is too easy. The citation for this bit was from a book from 1997, Deaf Politics of Deafness. Now I can't check that book and what context that was taken from but her source is almost 20 years old. So moving on.

yes
are you aware the sources in this industry a sin Deaf education, language acquisition, take time, it snot like your product fetish, these sources don't go out of date or usefulness you know...

i guess you don't...

Y
At another point she says that 21% of CI kids get no speech.

indeed
what does pervasive results mean?

Y
First of you will not see scientists making claims like that until you get into like meta studies.

who claims to be a scientist?

Y
Her source was a study from 2007 (almost 10 years ago) 82 kids (that's smallish study size) all prelingually implanted kids. But all different ages, some even in college, so these kids have been implanted with the dinosaurs and some that have to have been implanted after the golden window anyway.....the conclusion of that particular study....
CONCLUSION: This long-term report shows that many profoundly hearing-impaired children using cochlear implants can develop functional levels of speech perception and production, attain age-appropriate oral language, develop competency level in a language other than their primary language, and achieve satisfactory academic performance.

yes.
have i ever denied this?
what is missing in your statements?

Y
Her citation to back up stating "having a high rate of communicative and educational problems"? A study that found that kids with CIs and hearing aids at Deaf schools are on equavilant reading levels.

But for the most part this whole article isn't anti prelingually cochlear implantation. It certainly doesn't back up that the majority of CI kids are harmed and not successful with CI. In fact at one point she says "research typically shows strong success with children implanted before 18 months and then she didn't say or cite anything to refute that.

i never claimed it was anti anything, i posted it for the numbers i highlighted to aid the discussion..
its not a black and white anti this anti that thing it never was...
this is NOT high school.

what it is is PRO SIGN, language acquisition.

Y
If anything your article is pro ORAL, whether CI or ha, and sign. Which is exactly how feel sooooo thumbs up. Even though it's not really what you think it is. Thanks for backing up my opinion.

you are aware my approach is bilingual?

also since you dismiss this entire article due to what you claim is the author's bias
im not sure how now you, can claim it backs you up?

what are smoking in texas?

the article is PRO SIGN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION.
that by definition make sit against the oralist project.
orlaist organizations work towards DENYING sign language acquisition,

thats the fundamental issue..in this for heaven's sake!!


what you have done is this

you post that the author are bias, they have an agenda,(like you don't), then go on to actually dismiss their points by stating what they already stated that results are pervasive, in one place then in another use the age of the studies as if this somehow negates what they state...(which it does not)

try again.

i keep having to ask because i'm curious, and others want to know..

but besides product loyalty and religious conviction
whats is in this for you?

 

[ambrosia]

nor much of anything else apparently





im well aware of that, ive read it,



yes that is done in academia...daily...




then if this is the case, if no person can ever be objective then all the studies ever that go to show the usefulness of CI to the FDA and all government bodies are then useless..

is this what you want us to believe?
if so
then what claim does CI have? to pre lingually implant let alone post lingualy implant..no numbers after all can be trusted.. (oh i get it, only numbers from entities that back yoru cause can eb trusted, OIC)

if we cannot trust any study form any human being to be objective, everyone has an angle...

or
let me ask you a question.(not that you'll answer its more for others..)

do you think their exists standards in academic research? standards in certain modeling? standards in measurements? standards in how all those standards can be presented?

can any piece of data anyplace ever be trusted if everyone can never be objective?




yes
are you aware the sources in this industry a sin Deaf education, language acquisition, take time, it snot like your product fetish, these sources don't go out of date or usefulness you know...

i guess you don't...




indeed
what does pervasive results mean?




who claims to be a scientist?




yes.
have i ever denied this?
what is missing in your statements?



i never claimed it was anti anything, i posted it for the numbers i highlighted to aid the discussion..
its not a black and white anti this anti that thing it never was...
this is NOT high school.




you are aware my approach is bilingual?

also since you dismiss this entire article due to what you claim is the author's bias
im not sure how now you, can claim it backs you up?

what are smoking in texas?


what you have done is this

you post that the author are bias, they have an agenda,(like you don't), then go on to actually dismiss their points by stating what they already stated that results are pervasive, in one place then in another use the age of the studies as if this somehow negates what they state...(which it does not)

try again.

i keep having to ask because i'm curious, and others want to know..

but besides product loyalty and religious conviction
whats is in this for you?

You called it study, if you knew it wasn't a study why did you call it one? And why are you "correcting" me about something you got wrong?

What she was doing wasn't research. She was using OTHER people's research to support her claims. I didn't dismiss the article at all, in any way, but it does indeed reflect bias.

Nothing is in it for me. Your gibberishy word salad alone is probably enough to galvanize any wandering parent researching CI for their kids to run straight to the closest CI clinic BUT just in case, its good for them to see someone pointing out what a delusional idiot you are. Point out the flaws in your propaganda.

You can't post incessantly borderline hate speech about CI then sit back and claim you're not anti-CI. You can't berate people for their adult decisions for themselves and then sit back and say you have nothing against it. Cultish.....,,fetish......please, tell me more about how you have no problems with cochlear implants. Nobody believes you you know. Anybody that has read even just a few of your posts has your number. Any lurker would decide to keep their kid far far far far from Deaf culture. I don't think you're worried about parents keeping their kids away from Deaf people, it's like you're doing your part to ensure exactly that.

Neither one of you are even born deaf, you or Jezie. You guys remind me of a couple newly converted. Nobody but the newly converted is that zealous.

 

[hoichi]

You called it study, if you knew it wasn't a study why did you call it one? And why are you "correcting" me about something you got wrong?

oh spare me....i used a wrogn word...yeah...

What she was doing wasn't research. She was using OTHER people's research to support her claims. I didn't dismiss the article at all, in any way, but it does indeed reflect bias.

yes she using other people's research ambrosia to support her claims in the article she wrote. your aware you need to do that you understand?
you can tjust make stuff up ambrosia, you need ot back claims up in articles with other people's research, so on so forth...my....my.....

Nothing is in it for me. Your gibberishy word salad alone is probably enough to galvanize any wandering parent researching CI for their kids to run straight to the closest CI clinic BUT just in case, its good for them to see someone pointing out what a delusional idiot you are. Point out the flaws in your propaganda.

so you believe other human beings are that easily led to doing things
fascinating..
if only it was that easy ambrosia....if only....
so if nothing is in this for you then clearly its just religious conviction
fair enough

You can't post incessantly borderline hate speech about CI then sit back and claim you're not anti-CI. You can't berate people for their adult decisions for themselves and then sit back and say you have nothing against it. Cultish.....,,fetish......please, tell me more about how you have no problems with cochlear implants. Nobody believes you you know. Anybody that has read even just a few of your posts has your number. Any lurker would decide to keep their kid far far far far from Deaf culture. I don't think you're worried about parents keeping their kids away from Deaf people, it's like you're doing your part to ensure exactly that.

i DO NOT POST HATE SPEECH AGAINST CI clearly your english language comprehension is minimal if that's what you think. ive repeatedly stated my position. i am NOT ANT CI. i am opposed to pre lingual implantation as is the majority of my culture, we are also opposed ot implanting children. i don't care what adults do, but i also am within my rights to be politically active in engaging this debate and in offering our alternative,. due the policies and actions of the Combined system of CI et al, inflicted on Deaf that is the DENYING of sign language, and in keeping Deaf away from Deaf so that they do not revert back to being Deaf", we OPPOSE this.
.as for myself and many others WE refuse the drill. i live life no wires attached!! and many are refusing the drill, so be it...
why do you care?

also
your the one who began using obscenities, bringing in private body parts, you were attacking not just me but another poster, essentially disempowering her form making her own opinions, and only basing yoru argument on personal, attacks... i admit though i shouldn't of played yoru game, and i hope we can move on from it. anway.

Neither one of you are even born deaf, you or Jezie. You guys remind me of a couple newly converted. Nobody but the newly converted is that zealous.

i was newly converted 30 years ago ambrosia, i've been Deaf for 30 years. i went to a gov residential Deaf school, i went to gally, so im not sure about your "nobody"nonsense," anyway im a moderate, in this!

since you brought up converting, how long have you had your CI?
newly converted indeed.

again all you can do is just be dismissive, ive been Deaf for 30 years, and even if i wasn't i posted cites and works and articles for you repeatedly of others who hold my view, who are also Deaf, i didn't make it up girl...i really didnt.

rather then being dismissive instead i ask you to be sincere.

FURTHUR!
im NOT even the one who keeps posting threads on this, STOP MISLEADING!!!
i only reply to posts that are already posted in this issue....(besides very very few times i actually start a thread), i haven't been chatting with myself have i?

so if that makes me a zealot, what are you? what is anyone on here?

one more thing before you go nighty nighty sleep
this statement betrays you know very little about Deaf. or much of our history for that matter,

but if you want to educate yourself (i know i know(raises hand in understanding)) you can read a book called open your eyes, in that book their is a section on this very thing....and inside Deaf culture by padden, or understanding Deaf culture by ladd.
i didn't write those books, so you must accept the fact there are others who also share hoichis views

if you have nothing good to say about me ambrosia, then pls
don't bring me up at all

and ill do likewise

 

[Jezie]

If anything your article is pro ORAL, whether CI or ha, and sign. Which is exactly how feel sooooo thumbs up. Even though it's not really what you think it is. Thanks for backing up my opinion.

Arctually no it was not pro oral or pro sign... it was pro bilingualism...
The very fact that the article Hoichi posted is pro bilingualism may point to a few facts... the fact your are attempting to belittle and attack an article that is attempting to encourage bilingualism is also telling... you attempt to name people like Hoichi and I zealots for the fact that we are against the strictly oral method and it is back by multiple studies, research, and research papers.... which this can be considered by the way and holds more PhDs then you and your team that drilled you... so... with this said... it is highly interesting to me that you would attack it and Hoichi... unless of course you are just blinded by your bianess? It is awesome to see you actually take a route that is not as easy as throwing slurs... I know that was hard...

 

[C-NICE]

http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/types/hearing/communication/cochlear.php
Disability Site

 

[C-NICE]

Slate Magazine
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/20..._cochlear_implant_for_a_person_born_deaf.html

 

[ambrosia]

Arctually no it was not pro oral or pro sign... it was pro bilingualism...
The very fact that the article Hoichi posted is pro bilingualism may point to a few facts... the fact your are attempting to belittle and attack an article that is attempting to encourage bilingualism is also telling... you attempt to name people like Hoichi and I zealots for the fact that we are against the strictly oral method and it is back by multiple studies, research, and research papers.... which this can be considered by the way and holds more PhDs then you and your team that drilled you... so... with this said... it is highly interesting to me that you would attack it and Hoichi... unless of course you are just blinded by your bianess? It is awesome to see you actually take a route that is not as easy as throwing slurs... I know that was hard...

hmmmmm what would they mean by bilingualism here??? Oh yeah teaching to communicate through oral language and sign. I broke it down to demonstrate to Hoichi that his own source is includes oral language as something the deaf should learn.

I wouldn't say a peep to Hoichi if he didn't act like a complete ass to people that have CI, or are interested in it. I wouldn't say a peep to him if he didn't rant against implanting children.

You guys focus too much on the wrong problem. You're blinded by your hate for CI and fail to see the big picture.

CI kids aren't the only ones that need sign. CI kids make up a tiny percentage of kids with hearing loss. In one of the sources in one of your links they said there's 1.4 million kids with hearing loss but only 25,500 kids with CIs, I don't remember what year that was from. Somewhere else I've seen there only 344,000 people, adults and children, in the WORLD, with CIs. That is tiny proportion of people.

CIs aren't the problem, as much as you'd like to scapegoat them. The problem is sign isn't being taught to enough dhh kids in general. There are a lot more kids with has that could use sign than there CI kids that could use it.

You know that was hard Hahahaha you know nothing Jezie, catch up already. I will discuss things......and I will flay. But thanks Nana


But I know how much you don't like people to just say things, claim them. You want proof, citations, it's only polite.
You say.........actually what you said doesn't make sense so I'll change it so it does....so you say the people that write these papers have more PhDs than me or my team that "drilled" me (careful you're hate speech is showing, foul tsk tsk and I do believe I detect attitude) I invite you to prove that.

 

[hoichi]

hmmmmm what would they mean by bilingualism here??? Oh yeah teaching to communicate through oral language and sign. I broke it down to demonstrate to Hoichi that his own source is includes oral language as something the deaf should learn.

since i have always stated i support a bilingual approach i no kiddin

h
I wouldn't say a peep to Hoichi if he didn't act like a complete ass to people that have CI, or are interested in it. I wouldn't say a peep to him if he didn't rant against implanting children.

and i wouldn't say a thing to you if you didnt act as if you wanted me too..so take a damn hint...again your in thsi for religious conviction and product loyalty, i and others are int hsi for something far more important...
i wont stand by and let you slander and spread lies about me that's for sure....

h
You guys focus too much on the wrong problem. You're blinded by your hate for CI and fail to see the big picture.

i don't hate CI, but its a free world so pls allow us to focus on what we wish and you of course can do the same...

h
CI kids aren't the only ones that need sign. CI kids make up a tiny percentage of kids with hearing loss. In one of the sources in one of your links they said there's 1.4 million kids with hearing loss but only 25,500 kids with CIs, I don't remember what year that was from. Somewhere else I've seen there only 344,000 people, adults and children, in the WORLD, with CIs. That is tiny proportion of people.

i have NEVER stated CI kids are the only who need sign...what planet are you on? ive always stated the exact opposite.....always....

h
CIs aren't the problem, as much as you'd like to scapegoat them. The problem is sign isn't being taught to enough dhh kids in general. There are a lot more kids with has that could use sign than there CI kids that could use it.

all Deaf kids need sign it is their birth right period, that statement does not mean you a or any other person kid or not cant or shouldn't learn it,,NO, all should learn it, but born deaf it is their birthright...period..

h
You know that was hard Hahahaha you know nothing Jezie, catch up already. I will discuss things......and I will flay. But thanks Nana

right she knwos nothing according to you yet clearly your an all round expert in us Defa, yet you don't knwo our language, are not one of us yoru not Deaf so here you are telling others they don't know much

h
But I know how much you don't like people to just say things, claim them. You want proof, citations, it's only polite.
You say.........actually what you said doesn't make sense so I'll change it so it does....so you say the people that write these papers have more PhDs than me or my team that "drilled" me (careful you're hate speech is showing, foul tsk tsk and I do believe I detect attitude) I invite you to prove that.

if you want to insists we hate a product line even though i've stated repeated i do not hate your product ambrosia but even if i did so what?

we are not permitted to hate a product now?

so much for freedom...

if we hate your product then its crystal clear by yoru statements here you hate Deaf children....

no kiddin.
so
besides yoru hatred for Deaf children what else do you have to offer to this discussion?
oh right i forgot...

yoru just someone with a product fetish and religious conviction who got drilled into

yeah...

 

[C-NICE]

yoru just someone with a product fetish

Have you ever considered that CIs do for the people who have them the same thing as HA do for people like this guy (I am at his stage right now). The deaf community has rights to ya know. All people with CIs are doing is switching from Deaf to deaf.

 

[Bottesini]

Have you ever considered that CIs do for the people who have them the same thing as HA do for people like this guy (I am at his stage right now). The deaf community has rights to ya know. All people with CIs are doing is switching from Deaf to deaf.

No that's not right.

Deaf people with CI switch nothing, they are Deaf people with CI.

 

[Jezie]

hmmmmm what would they mean by bilingualism here??? Oh yeah teaching to communicate through oral language and sign. I broke it down to demonstrate to Hoichi that his own source is includes oral language as something the deaf should learn.

Seeings as Hoichi and I have both supported bilingualism, it comes as no surprise that he would post and then defend this article... so keep reaching for straws on how you can vilify him...

I wouldn't say a peep to Hoichi if he didn't act like a complete ass to people that have CI, or are interested in it.

Seeings as you also attack me and I do not do the above, excuse me if I do not believe you... more than one side is allowed to be covered... as for his treatment of others, hoichi does not start things, but he does see then to the finish ... if he is a butt to you... well, sadly that is on you, not your CI...

I wouldn't say a peep to him if he didn't rant against implanting children.

Sure... I believe that... not...

You guys focus too much on the wrong problem. You're blinded by your hate for CI and fail to see the big picture.

Seeings as I do not hate CI... guess you are off here as well... the fact that you fail to see past it is telling... have a mirror?

CI kids aren't the only ones that need sign. CI kids make up a tiny percentage of kids with hearing loss. In one of the sources in one of your links they said there's 1.4 million kids with hearing loss but only 25,500 kids with CIs, I don't remember what year that was from. Somewhere else I've seen there only 344,000 people, adults and children, in the WORLD, with CIs. That is tiny proportion of people.

Yep, and you know... I have not run across a single deaf person that says sign is only for the deaf...

CIs aren't the problem, as much as you'd like to scapegoat them.

you seem quite stuck on this... yet more often then not I have said it is not the tech/CI/device that is the problem... it is the philosophy behind them... even said it a few times here too... so... please, get off the CI issue... look past it... that has not been the issue... thanks

The problem is sign isn't being taught to enough dhh kids in general. There are a lot more kids with has that could use sign than there CI kids that could use it.

mostly yep...

You know that was hard Hahahaha you know nothing Jezie, catch up already. I will discuss things......and I will flay. But thanks Nana

Aw, so cute... thank you... immataion and all that...

But I know how much you don't like people to just say things, claim them. You want proof, citations, it's only polite.
You say.........actually what you said doesn't make sense so I'll change it so it does....so you say the people that write these papers have more PhDs than me or my team that "drilled" me (careful you're hate speech is showing, foul tsk tsk and I do believe I detect attitude) I invite you to prove that.

Please to not alter my words or meaning... just because you are that dirty and lewd does not mean I am...

 

[C-NICE]

Deaf people with CI switch nothing, they are Deaf people with CI.

That may be 100% true, but people with CIs are traitors to no one's cause and parents that choose the CI for their kids also are not traitors to anyone or their cause.

 

[C-NICE]

A Childs top ten CI likes.

 

[hoichi]

Have you ever considered that CIs do for the people who have them the same thing as HA do for people like this guy (I am at his stage right now). The deaf community has rights to ya know. All people with CIs are doing is switching from Deaf to deaf.

you have every little knowledge on what your going on about...
pls try again

 

[hoichi]

That may be 100% true, but people with CIs are traitors to no one's cause and parents that choose the CI for their kids also are not traitors to anyone or their cause.

who has ever stated this?
pls do tell

 

[C-NICE]

indeed those children matter to us..

I get that impression from this and your other posts.

 

[C-NICE]

yoru just someone with a product fetish and religious conviction who got drilled into

Which bring me to one of my biggest bones to pick. Who authorized you to decide who deaf enough, only the non implant and the anti-implant cultural people qualify in your view. That is good to know. By the way since you read Dr. Chorost's bio you should know he was born deaf, but because he does not sign and got an implant he is an outsider. Again who authorized you to decide?

 

[ambrosia]

Lots of blah blah
I have said it is not the tech/CI/device that is the problem... it is the philosophy behind them... even said it a few times here too... so... please, get off the CI issue... look past it... that has not been the issue... thanks

THIS is exactly why you can't see the big picture. It's not "CI" philosophy, it's not philosophy particle to CI. It is the same for hearing aids. The reasoning behind focusing on oral language instead of sign is the same. And it wasn't new, the philosophy was already in place before sign.

If you were truly just pro bilingualism and not just working overtime for your D card by being so anti-CI you'd be focusing on better support systems for deaf children and better, more well rounded education for the speech pathologists and all the other professionals involved in a child's language acquisition. Both CI kids and kids with hearing aids.

You wouldn't be harassing people posting about CIs badgering them and trying to guilt them about the "harm" children receive from them. You wouldn't be going around falsely claiming that the MAJORITY of CI kids are harmed by them. It is a completely false claim btw, not even the research that supports he articles you two post support that claim.

Do you actually think you're fooling anyone? Anyone at all?

Please to not alter my words or meaning... just because you are that dirty and lewd does not mean I am...

Uhhhh no. Piss off, Mom