What is a negative aspect of Cued Speech ???

[jillio]

I've never claimed to be the voice for all deaf. If you don't like my answer, deal with it.

 

[shel90]

Negative aspects of CS are:
It is not a language
It was invented
It wasn't naturally elvoved like ASL and spoken English

 

[deafskeptic]

deafskeptic- .

Your statement can be construded as misleading with your word choices.

Considering your past positions and claims regarding cued speech - not to mention the condractions, I'm afraid you're hardly in a position to accuse me of misleading others.

 

[rick48]

Considering your past positions and claims regarding cued speech - not to mention the condractions, I'm afraid you're hardly in a position to accuse me of misleading others.

Oh I think she is in a great position do to exactly that.

BTW just what are some of those "past positions and claims regarding cued speech - not to mention the condractions"? Do you have any other than your knee jerk negative reaction anytime loml mentions cs? It really is getting stale.

 

[rick48]

The topic is diluting.... which is fine...

So far, no negative aspects about Cued Speech.... not really

A lot of accusations about what Cued Speech is NOT, but that's not the point.

Requests to back up positive experiences with "data" without displaying any foundation or "data" regarding negative experiences.... but that's the standard reaction of some posters..

As I said... many positive experiences, positive data / articles, but really nothing negative has been produced in this thread....

Excellent.. !!

Other than the person attacks on loml, nothing negative has been cited.
Rick

 

[jillio]

Oh I think she is in a great position do to exactly that.

BTW just what are some of those "past positions and claims regarding cued speech - not to mention the condractions"? Do you have any other than your knee jerk negative reaction anytime loml mentions cs? It really is getting stale.

Here we go again. The hearies promoting CS telling the deafies that their experience with CS is invalid. Will it never end?

 

[jillio]

Other than the person attacks on loml, nothing negative has been cited.
Rick

Just because you fail to recognize that negatives have indeed been cited does not mean that they don't exist.

 

[Cloggy]

The negatives are there. Just because you refuse to see them doesn't mean that they fail to exist.

Mmmmmmm sure.... if only you could think of some....
.. oh wait... I have to find them myself... well... that's why I started the thread.....
So far... nothing really.....

enlighten us.... (and add some articles while you're at it..)

Negative aspects of CS are:
A: It is not a language
B: It was invented
C: It wasn't naturally elvoved like ASL and spoken English

Finally ... a summary.....

A: It never claimed to be a language... and so what?
B: What's negative about that?
C: See B....

Still nothing....

 

[deafskeptic]

Oh I think she is in a great position do to exactly that.

BTW just what are some of those "past positions and claims regarding cued speech - not to mention the condractions"? Do you have any other than your knee jerk negative reaction anytime loml mentions cs? It really is getting stale.

I refer you to to posts 138 thru 148 and 170 on this thread for condratictions and that's for starters, Rick. I could trawl thru the forums looking for even more examples but I'm not in the mood for it. I'm sure others would be happy to provide other examples as well.

 

[rick48]

I refer you to to posts 138 thru 148 and 170 on this thread for condratictions and that's for starters, Rick. I could trawl thru the forums looking for even more examples but I'm not in the mood for it. I'm sure others would be happy to provide other examples as well.

Read them and they do not support your attacks on loml its just you and your pals engaging in your regular practice of attacking her so perhaps you better get yourself in the mood or just learn to "deal with it". Go trawling it seems to be what you and your pals are best at anyway.

Have a nice day,
Rick

 

[rick48]

I refer you to to posts 138 thru 148 and 170 on this thread for condratictions and that's for starters, Rick. I could trawl thru the forums looking for even more examples but I'm not in the mood for it. I'm sure others would be happy to provide other examples as well.

BTW of the posts cited, only four were from loml, all the rest were from others. Perhaps it is they whom you believe are contradicting themselves?

 

[shel90]

Jillo, let's face it.. the majority of hearing people look down on ASL and Deaf people. They want to do it their way and yet they are not the ones who are living with deafness. Go figure..:roll:

 

[deafskeptic]

BTW of the posts cited, only four were from loml, all the rest were from others. Perhaps it is they whom you believe are contradicting themselves?

I believe they were noting the condractions in Loml's claims. I felt it important to provide the context.

 

[jillio]

Mmmmmmm sure.... if only you could think of some....
.. oh wait... I have to find them myself... well... that's why I started the thread.....
So far... nothing really.....

enlighten us.... (and add some articles while you're at it..)


Finally ... a summary.....

A: It never claimed to be a language... and so what?
B: What's negative about that?
C: See B....

Still nothing....

Evidence that denial is an overpowering defense mechanism.

 

[jillio]

Jillo, let's face it.. the majority of hearing people look down on ASL and Deaf people. They want to do it their way and yet they are not the ones who are living with deafness. Go figure..:roll:

Absolutely. The degree of ethnocentricsm exhibited by some hearies is astounding. The combination of ethnocentricism and denial appears to result in both deafness and blindness in some hearies.

 

[jillio]

I refer you to to posts 138 thru 148 and 170 on this thread for condratictions and that's for starters, Rick. I could trawl thru the forums looking for even more examples but I'm not in the mood for it. I'm sure others would be happy to provide other examples as well.

How about....it is a language, it isn't a language. It doesn't help with speech skills, it does help with speech skills. It wasn't intended for language acquisition, it allows for language acquisition. And those are just the first 3 off the top of my head. We all see it. Well, we all see it expcept the couple of hearing members who never used the system, nor have studied it at all.

 

[shel90]

Mmmmmmm sure.... if only you could think of some....
.. oh wait... I have to find them myself... well... that's why I started the thread.....
So far... nothing really.....

enlighten us.... (and add some articles while you're at it..)


Finally ... a summary.....

A: It never claimed to be a language... and so what?
B: What's negative about that?
C: See B....

Still nothing....

You created this thread and still refuse to see what many of us have considered to be negative aspects of cued speech. If you want to be blind to it, be my guest.

Seems like this thread was a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[jillio]

You created this thread and still refuse to see what many of us have considered to be negative aspects of cued speech. If you want to be blind to it, be my guest.

Seems like this thread was a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

Ditto!

 

[loml]

You created this thread and still refuse to see what many of us have considered to be negative aspects of cued speech. If you want to be blind to it, be my guest.

Seems like this thread was a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

shel90- The supposed "negative aspects" that a few people claimed were/are not of the system Cued Speech.

 

[jillio]

shel90- The supposed "negative aspects" that a few people claimed were/are not of the system Cued Speech.

Simply another case of refusing to see the elephant standing in the middle of the room.