Oral school

[jillio]

To early for a beer unless its with some cold pizza, the true breakfast of champions. Flippy are your referring to the string cite of "research" you posted a few months back wherein I addressed your first two examples of "research" that allegedly "proved" your point? As you have undoubtedly forgotten, I advised you that they had nothing to do with the point you allegedly had "proved". If you recall, shortly after that, the thread was closed.

Yes, and we can thank you for putting an end to another productive discussion. And, if you knew anything at all about research, you would not continually use the word "prove" in reference to such. If you will notice, those who actually read and understand the research do not use the word "prove" at all. It is the language of those who are attempting to disprove something without ever having taken the time to read and understand that which they are arguing about.

 

[jillio]

What's interesting that CI-ed children in Denmark have "higher" (statistically insignificant) self esteem than the hearing group. And they are seemingly bullied less often (though statistically insignificant compared to their the hearing group which means they're basically the same) at school (deaf and mainstreamed schools).

If it is statistically insignificant, then it is neither "higher" not "less". Please learn a bit about the language used in research before attempting to draw conclusions.

Since it is a habit of mine to provide sources (as opposed to some people in here who just rely on opinions/statements as if they're facts and not provide any sources when asked) I'll do it here.
sdarticle(2).pdf

Your "article" cannot be linked through your source. Try posting a citation. Then we can all acess it directly from the academic source. If you are using anything less than an academic source, then your "article" has no value for the purpose of citing research.
Yeah, I can see the naysayers come out and point out all kinds of faults in this study. Remember, a study can only show so much and never a complete picture. There are always caveats and that studies of this nature are not meant to be completely conclusive. Though in this one it does show a positive result which would warrant further study and expansion.

Perhaps it is so easy to point out the faults because you are using flawed sources. Try using a valid and reliable piece of research.

This pretty much smashes the idea that CI kids are "loners" and that they are bullied often.

Tsk tsk....

What a contradictory statement. First you say that this study is flawed and is inconclusive, and then you attempt to use it as proof of something. What an amatuer!:laugh2:

 

[jillio]

I would love to call you sometime too, Jillio! It would be nice to have a totally unbiased opinion of my voice. I can't ask my family or SO because they are USED to my voice. And even if you already knew I am deaf, you would still be hearing my voice for the first time.

Let me know, and I'll give you my number in PM.

 

[rick48]

Neither one of you have a clue. But its not unusual for people to bond over their mututal confusion.

You ought to know about bonding over mutual, not mututal, confusion. You are the queen of it.

 

[rick48]

First of all, let me put it in simpler terms so that you can understand.

When I say "as compared to" I am referring to control groups used for comparison purposes. That means that the 3 groups were compared for the same thing, with the difference between the groups being noted as I did. That means, in turn, that the oral deaf students group, as a whole, experienced more adjustment problems on the psycho-social level than did the hearing students or the students in the deaf school. If you want to argue with the findings, I suggest that you access the research and study it, and see if you can find any methodlogical flaws.

The study comes from the Oxford Journals, and as I've said, has been posted on any number of occasions. The citation is all you need to locate this particular piece of research. It is available to you through AD's search feature.

Whatever terms that you choose to use, and the use of condescending tone is always a sign of one lwho cannot support or prove their argument, you cannot mask the fact that you are referring to uncited "empirical" studies. First you mention "significant" issues now you have morphed that into "more adjustment problems" (another in a long line of meaningless psycho babble terms), seems like its hard for you to keep your stories straight, perhaps you ought to adhere to the KISS method yourself.

Again, I am not arguing any alleged "findings" for you have not produced any to either argue or discuss. There is, at this point, nothing to discuss other than your baised baseless observations about children either raised orally and/or who have cochlear implants.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

The other site must be dead otherwise this argument wouldn't be going on and on.

 

[rick48]

Yes, and we can thank you for putting an end to another productive discussion. And, if you knew anything at all about research, you would not continually use the word "prove" in reference to such. If you will notice, those who actually read and understand the research do not use the word "prove" at all. It is the language of those who are attempting to disprove something without ever having taken the time to read and understand that which they are arguing about.

I do not think you want to get into a discussion as to who has caused more threads to be closed and/or who has been banned the most from this forum.

Ah, the semantical argument over the term "prove" vs. "support", good one for the diversionary tactic is always a good tactic to use to divert attention away from the fact that you keep referring to "empirical" studies or whatever term du jour you are using that you have yet to produce.

Its akin to the anti-cochlear implant myths and lie that emanate from those you support: keep repeating the lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

I have yet to offer an argument pro or con regarding your "empirical" materials as I have repeatedly observed, you have not cited any.

 

[rick48]

Why would it be frustrating to me? It's an opinion of yours.

,

Agree, what would be frustrating about an opinion uttered by someone whose opinions I find of no value on the subject of cochlear implants and/or raising an oral deaf child?

 

[Mrs Bucket]

I do not think you want to get into a discussion as to who has caused more threads to be closed and/or who has been banned the most from this forum.

This is a debate. Last time I recalled, we were allowed to debate in a healthy & respectable way.

Its akin to the anti-cochlear implant myths and lie that emanate from those you support: keep repeating the lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

Where's the myths and the lies? Please provide such quotes to substantiate such said statements otherwise they're moot.

I have yet to offer an argument pro or con regarding your "empirical" materials as I have repeatedly observed, you have not cited any.

If you're not too busy railroading jillio, you'll notice she has provided sources and will gladly provide sources when asked.

All you have to do.. is ask.

 

[Daredevel7]

Oh I'm sure getting tired of this cycle of "If you just see my previous posts, you will find information that refutes your claims." and "Why can't you simply post a link that supports your so called claims".

The way I see it:

I am sure Jillio has posted something somewhere on AD related to whatever she claims. Unfortunately, it is usually hidden deep in AD (and if you even try to do a search, most likely, thousands of hits will come up unless you know the exact name of the report) or it's a reference to an article meaning you have to pay to see it. Besides it's obviously that she isn't too fond of Rick, so why would she waste an ounce of time doing something for him, especially when she knows that Rick will respond to the article with multiple criticisms (ex. "Oh pfft it takes FAILED oral deaf kids comparing them to SUCCESSFUL ASL kids").

My suggestion: Screw this cycle of asking for links/responding with "go back and review". Instead of constantly asking for links and wasting pixels by boasting on the fact that they won't provide links, simply ask once or provide your own link. New information and new criticism is always better. Instead of saying some general guide such as "You can find the links anywhere on AD or google it", either say nothing or a NAME or the title of the article or a shred of information. You don't even have to search, just one itty bitty piece of information to go on from.

 

[Bottesini]

Oh I'm sure getting tired of this cycle of "If you just see my previous posts, you will find information that refutes your claims." and "Why can't you simply post a link that supports your so called claims".

The way I see it:

I am sure Jillio has posted something somewhere on AD related to whatever she claims. Unfortunately, it is usually hidden deep in AD (and if you even try to do a search, most likely, thousands of hits will come up unless you know the exact name of the report) or it's a reference to an article meaning you have to pay to see it. Besides it's obviously that she isn't too fond of Rick, so why would she waste an ounce of time doing something for him, especially when she knows that Rick will respond to the article with multiple criticisms (ex. "Oh pfft it takes FAILED oral deaf kids comparing them to SUCCESSFUL ASL kids").

My suggestion: Screw this cycle of asking for links/responding with "go back and review". Instead of constantly asking for links and wasting pixels by boasting on the fact that they won't provide links, simply ask once or provide your own link. New information and new criticism is always better. Instead of saying some general guide such as "You can find the links anywhere on AD or google it", either say nothing or a NAME or the title of the article or a shred of information. You don't even have to search, just one itty bitty piece of information to go on from.

Stop asking people to be reasonable!! That is not the AD way!!

 

[Daredevel7]

Stop asking people to be reasonable!! That is not the AD way!!

Oh I'm sorry. I keep forgetting. I'm new here.

 

[Calvin]

Mod note:

Time to close this thread, it has brought some good discussions.