> On (22 Oct 05) Cindy Haglund wrote to WAYNE
 > CHIRNSIDE...
 >  CH>  WC> I'm left handed and dyslexic.
 >  CH>  WC> Dyslexia is tied to poor development of socail skills
and I can't
 >  CH>  WC> debate that.
 >  CH>
 >  CH>
 >  CH>  Yes and even now if you're 'different' in ANY WAY from what MOST
 >  CH> people are, your 'difference' is seen as an
"ABNORMALITY" that MUST be
 >  CH> FIXED....

 > Yes, and in "their" perfect world, you wouldn't have
 > options to overcome
 > the communication barrier your deafness causes, so
 > you'd be a docile
 > slave -- you'd be obedient(grateful, even!) to your
 > master and/or
 > husband!

 >  CH> Recently in our paper there's a feature about a play given by a local
 >  CH> HS (high school) about parents wanting to get their deaf 7 year old a
 >  CH> CI (Cochlear implant)... (don't get me started).
 >  CH>
 >  CH> I learned two things from this article.
 >  CH>
 >  CH> 1. The Deaf (born deaf) community do not regard themselves ad
 >  CH> 'disabled'...

 > I had a senior neighbour who watched a news program on
 > the C.I. and
 > interviewed some mothers who said they would not get
 > it for their deaf
 > child, because they didn't want to deny their child
 > "their deaf
 > community" -- my friend's view was that the parents
 > were making an evil
 > crime of denying their children the gifts, for
 > example, of
 > knowing/appreciating music.

 > What's your view?

 > Certainly being deaf, if the world is willing/able to
 > care enough about
 > them as being fellow citizens in human society to
 > communicate with them!
 > ("all you-all")

 >  CH> 2. Besides the FACT CI's do not restore full hearing (tone wise
 >  CH> required for speech indentation for example)- in all individuals and
 >  CH> I will tell you another fact: silence is preferable to noise...
 >  CH> besides these two 'shuts them up every time" facts CI's can pose a
 >  CH> danger (read: serious injury) to the wearer should they receive a blow
 >  CH> to
 >  CH> the head.

 > But isn't it worth it, if it helps SOME get normal
 > hearing, so they can:

But this is the point you've missed, George.  The hearing afforded by CI's
is not at all normal; it's a last resort and a poor substitute for the real
thing.  Cindy says "tone," where the terminology I would use is
"frequency." There are times when I hear people speak, but it
sounds nothing to me like a voice, not to mention that it's unintelligible.
 Above a certain frequency, music is just noise to me, because at that
point, I can't distinguish among frequencies. This relates to Cindy's
statement that "silence is preferable to noise."

 > -know & appreciate "music"?
 > -have the ability to hear warnings of danger (eg.
 > accellerating car
 >  around the corner, barking dog on the move,
 > rattlesnake rattle, etc.)
 > -be able to more easily communicate with more people
 > using all the
 >  abilities that God/Nature/Evolution has bestowed on
 > the human creature

All of the above, then, are things that many people with defective hearing
can't do, sometimes even with amplification.

 > Yes, some deaf people(one of my neighbours stands out
 > in particular)
 > experience no real barrier in communicating with
 > hearing folk, but it
 > does take a special person with exceptional abilities
 > & motivation to
 > overcome the natural barrier.

 > It's like trying to communicate with dolphins, in
 > their environment --
 > we're crippled -- if it was important to communicate
 > with them we'd have
 > to overcome our disabilities of being land-bound, and
 > mute/deaf, as far
 > as dolpin-style communication goes!)

 > Okay, I know what you're thinking(I think): f***
 > communicating with the
 > dolphins; I'll live my life without it and be
 > perfectly happy!"

 > But born-deaf children aren't as separated from
 > hearing society as
 > we-all are from dolphins

I disagree, here.  I think they probably are, unless society makes diligent
and persistent efforts to communicate "tries to communicate with the
dolphins"--which it too often does not.

 > Society is stronger (collectively & individually) with
 > greater
 > unity(through communication), so we each have a
 > greater opportunity to
 > achieve our highest potential(cf. Maslow's Hierarchy
 > of Needs)!

 > Let's say you get injured somehow(bit by a
 > rattlesnake, e.g.)

 > You're being part of a society affords you the ability
 > to get thee to a
 > hospital, communicate that you were bit by a
 > diamondback rattler
 > (verbally is quickest, but you could convey it, still,
 > via writing
 > "diamondback" or even drawing the distinctive back
 > pattern plus a
 > squiggly line to indicate snake(or use your hand to
 > make a snake-like
 > motion)

 > You're where you are today because you're part of a
 > societal whole.

 > The days when humanity were so few we each had our own
 > little plot to
 > grow just what we need for our own family unit are
 > long past. . .

 > We NEED the industrialization we have to have a means
 > to contribute so
 > as to earn some sort of recompense to provide for
 > necessities (food,
 > shelter, medical, etc.)

 > Doesn't it stand to reason that the easier it is, the
 > higher we can go
 > in our paths?

 > Who can achieve greater success climbing a mountain?
 > a) s/he who climbs the cliffs straight up (without
 > equipmint/training)
 > b) s/he who does the same, but with proper equipment/
 > training
 > c) s/he who follows the nicely marked hiking trail
 > that meanders around
 >    the worst obstacles
 > d) s/he who is dropped off at the top by helicopter.

 > If the goal is to reach the top, "d" clearly wins,
 > because "D" ably
 > overcame all disabilities.

 > EVERYBODY has disabilities; but society defines some
 > as more
 > overt/problematic than others, but the fact remains
 > that ALL have them!

 > A friend of mine was in a local mall having a
 > smoke(back in the day!)
 > and saw a young girl in a wheelchair who was a
 > quadruple amputee;
 > Heather, naturally, had a first reaction, internally,
 > of "awwww, what a
 > darn shame for someone so young & pretty!"

 > Well, it must have showed somehow, because this girl
 > wheels herself over
 > right in front of Heather and says, "Don't you DARE
 > feel sorry for me! I
 > *KNOW* what MY disability is -- what's YOURS?"

 > Heather, instead of getting offended, allowed that to
 > sink in and
 > thought about it all that day, and became a
 > better(more enlightened)
 > person because of it -- she shared it with us later
 > that night, and I,
 > too, have become more enlightened because of it (I
 > didn't experience
 > what Heather did, but through the miracle of equitable
 > clear
 > communication I could learn the same lessons/values as
 > she did!)

 > I'll admit, right off, that you, being deaf, can learn
 > life's lessons
 > that I can't, and through this miracle of equitable
 > clear communication
 > you could share them with me(and others) so in that
 > respect you're not
 > "disabled" in any absolute sense of the concept!

 > My main reason for defining deafness as a "disability"
 > is as above, the
 > otic system's ability to recognize auditory warnings
 > of danger.

 > (Why else did hearing ever evolve, in so many
 > creatures?)

 > Nowadays it may not be as critical to life as it once
 > was, but it's
 > still going to take time for society as a whole to
 > evolve to accept such
 > a change/difference from the "norm"(known comfort
 > zone) -- and we are,
 > that's why we have "Hearing Aid Dogs", hearing aids,
 > the written
 > word(paper, and computer), text-to-voice technology so
 > you(et al) can
 > communicate with people who are illiterate.

 >  CH> This info needs to be known by the general public. So when they meet a
 >  CH> latent deaf/deaf or HOH (hard of hearing) person they might THINK
 >  CH> before
 >  CH> brightly well intentionally bringing the subject up. ((Especially to a
 >  CH> born deaf ("DEAF" ) person. You may as well stick
your hand into hot
 >  CH> fire...
 >  CH> Do us all us hearing impaired persons a favor. Don't. We already KNOW.

 > Not all do -- there are mobility-challenged people in
 > our society who
 > are unaware that there are wheelchairs/scooters, and
 > these are FAR more
 > well-known than C.I.s!

 > I think there's a dual responsibility:

 > 1) on the part of the caring hearing person making
 > sure the born-deaf
 > knows about all options available, to STFU quickly if
 > the other's
 > response is anything but open!

George, it's reasonable to assume that children are taken to doctors by
their parents, and it's reasonable to assume that adults (especially if
they tell you they hear poorly or were born with poor hearing) know what,
if any, options are available. It's offensive and presumptious for anybody
to walk up to a person with hearing problems and start
"informing" them of options available.  Most adults consult
doctors occasionally, and these doctors would be able to make an
intelligent assesment of the nature of their patient's hearing.  If
something new came up on the horizon, *the patient's own physician(s)*,
regardless of his specialty, would know whether it might be applicable to
that patient, and tell him so.  Everybody else, the man on the street, the
coworker, etc., is just a sidewalk superintendent.

 > 2) on the part of the born-deaf confronted by a well-
 > meaning person, to
 > politely/civilly acknowledge their intent to be
 > helpful. . .

It gets old really fast, especially if they keep making an issue of it.

 > For myself, I can only use 1 hand/arm, so some things
 > are more
 > difficult.

 > In a restaurant, I appreciate if the server ASKS me if
 > I'd like some
 > help with whatever(eg. carrying tray, opening packets,
 > etc.) but I do
 > find it annoying when they just ASSUME I'm incompetent
 > and start DOING
 > it FOR me! (opening my ketchups, cutting my
 > meat(usually all wrong!)

 > I'm a big boy, I've finally figured out that I'm
 > allowed to request
 > assistance, when needed (I accept that people are just
 > as much allowed
 > to turn me down, in whatever way is easiest for them
 > (including
 > pretending not to hear until I give up) because they
 > feel put on the
 > spot.

 > Nobody OWES me anything in this world (unless we've
 > agreed to a
 > transaction and I've fulfilled my part but they
 > haven't yet)

 > I know people in wheelchairs who DEMAND to be allowed
 > to go first
 > (elevators, lineups, bus lineups, etc.) but I don't --
 > I know that it's
 > the social convention that I be allowed priority use
 > of elevators, but I
 > recognize that they're public facilities, and if I'm
 > not first in line,
 > then I may well have to wait my turn!

 > In lineups at the grocery store/etc. I tend to
 > offer(insist sometimes)
 > for standing seniors to go ahead of me (I remember how
 > difficult/tiring/painful it was for me, when walking
 > with a cane to wait
 > too long in lineups!)

 > I will also usually offer/insist that ladies go ahead
 > of me (just
 > because I'm in a wheelchair doesn't mean I can't/
 > shouldn't be a
 > gentleman!)

 > Yes, I know the feminut lobby says that this is
 > demeaning behaviour by
 > me, but it's NOT -- only I know __MY__ motive/intent,
 > and it's certainly
 > not treating them as lesser/weaker creatures -- it's
 > an honour I accord
 > to that half of our species who may have or may one
 > day have to go
 > through the danger/responsibility of pregnancy!

 > That, and because I tend to adopt an attitude of
 > respect towards women,
 > because I hope to eventually meet the right one and
 > convince her to sign
 > on for a lifetime intimate association with me, and
 > she needs to feel
 > that there's going to be value for her in doing such!

 > See? Nothing putting down women at all -- and most, if
 > they haven't
 > become brainwashed by the feminut lobby, APPRECIATE
 > such tokens of
 > honour from the male sex!

 > (or, if they're lacking, will certainly view the male
 > in question as
 > a lot lesser of a person, and "weak," in the social
 > graces!)

 > It's funny, but the old truism holds true even today:
 > "we hate most that
 > which we are"

 >  CH> I'm working on a witty comeback for next time. Any suggestions?
 >  CH> George?
 >  CH> you're my best bet with witty comebacks! :)
 >  CH>
 >  CH> How about...(someone Innocently asks : "have you heard of Cochlear
 >  CH> implants.....  "Why yes and  have you heard of frontal
lobe implants?"
 >  CH> 7Oh something like that...


 > I think that'd be inappropriate and definitely
 > overkill and wouldn't go
 > any distance towards improving relations/communication
 > between hearing &
 > non-hearing.  I consider myself a bit of an ambassador
 > for all people in
 > wheelchairs -- if I act like an ahole, people will
 > naturally have an
 > expectation of aholism from the next person in a chair
 > they meet, and
 > it's going to make it harder for that person in a
 > chair to get even a
 > fair shake, let alone a little extra consideration!

 > I've been a victim of others' not being so diligent --
 > a lady bus driver
 > continually refused to do her job to secure my chair
 > with the supplied
 > straps -- finally it came to a head with a Supervisor
 > showing up, and
 > she, apparently, whispered to him that the issue
 > wasn't the nonhygiene
 > of the belts on the floor(deemed a legitimate
 > complaint by the company
 > -- which is why they supply free gloves to all drives
 > who want them!) as
 > she had told me, but she told the supervisor that
 > "personal
 > hygiene"(ie "smell") was the problem -- so I directly
 > asked the
 > supervisor, "Do you smell ANYTHING on me?  I don't
 > leave the house
 > unless I'm washed up & in clean clothes!"  He got
 > really uncomfortable
 > and begged me t write a letter to head office, as it
 > works better coming
 > from me(passenger) than him. . .

 > I suspect what happened (because her issue with smell
 > was certainly not
 > with me that day, or EVER!) is that some people in
 > chairs are also
 > 'cognitively-challenged'(I hate that phrase!) and may
 > not know to clean
 > up properly(and/or are unable, and/or have toileting
 > issues
 > (incontinence, filled diaper) and so she's built up a
 > prejudice based on
 > that bad experience she had. . .

 > I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of her
 > attitude/response,
 > just pointing out that it IS natural and part of
 > getting along with
 > other people is working together with their natural
 > biases/preferences,
 > and having understanding for THEIR disabilities(even
 > if they're not
 > defined by the AMA, nor some non-profit grants-
 > receiving organization!)

 > I save angry responses for when it's important (life/
 > death situations of
 > critical timing, and/or situations when the lesson to
 > be taught is more
 > important than diplomacy/tact)

 > Think: what is it they're truly doing WRONG(ie.
 > harmful) in politely,
 > out of a thoughtful/compassionate intent, asking if
 > you now about this
 > [still] new techology?

 > I'll give an example of when I responded with anger to
 > someone's
 > well-meaning intent, BECAUSE the lesson to be taught
 > was most important.

 > Years ago, I was visiting one of those little store-
 > front type community
 > churches (happened to be of the "Charismaniac"
 > variety) and I was
 > walking with my cane.  A sweet lady asked me if she
 > could pray for me, I
 > thanked her and acceded -- I'm sure her doing so made
 > her feel good for
 > the day, and what the hell, it didn't do squat to
 > me(or FOR me, but
 > whatever.. *G*)

 > Well, a week or two later I was back again visiting,
 > and this same lady
 > comes up to me, rather upset with me, because I wasn't
 > healed
 > (apparently my limping called into question her faith/
 > etc.) so she
 > starts lighting into me about how my weak faith has
 > left me crippled,
 > and unless I believed properly, I was going to STAY
 > crippled.

 > Well, I know this type -- and I knew I was only the
 > current victim of
 > her ignorance/insecurity, and that many others
 > wouldn't be as able as I
 > to withstand it without psychological/emotional
 > damage, so I turned on
 > the anger(just a WEE!) and turned on HER:

 > "Listen, lady, maybe you better take some classes &
 > READ your Bible
 > instead of allowing it to collect dust so it can be
 > showed off to your
 > guests how GOOD you are in having it out in the open!
 > Maybe you recall
 > a sermon where it was read/taught that Jesus said when
 > you pray, pray
 > BELIEVING, and it WILL BE DONE according to how you
 > ask! Do NOT attempt
 > to condemn ME because YOUR faith was too weak to heal
 > me -- what are you
 > trying to do?  Jerk me around, lift up my hopes for
 > nothing?  You are
 > blaspheming the Lord when you do that!"

Do you realize that this is analagous to the behavior of people who want to
bring you up to date on all the latest treatments?  Your lack of faith,
your unwillingness to have surgery, etc.

 > Note: I certainly do believe in the power of healing
 > prayers, as I have
 > been the redipient of miraculous healing in the
 > past(at a time/situation
 > when healing was the best thing for me!)
 > So I certainly know the difference between the right
 > kind and wrong kind
 > of prayer for healing!

 > I know you don't believe even the scientific evidence
 > in favour of the
 > efficacy of genuine(faithful) prayer, but your
 > disbelief in no way
 > changes the facts!

 > In her case, I deemed an angry direct response the
 > most appropriate, to
 > save a lot of people a lot of grief, and my intent
 > wasn't anger, it was
 > to help her be a better person and a better
 > Christian(as that was the
 > milieu at the time)

 >  CH>  Yes but people don't take Biology and genetics anymore Wayne. Not
 >  CH> down in the deep south anyway and not unless they WANT to. So most
 >  CH> people wouldn't know what a gene is if their life depended on it or
 >  CH> they rely on the (coughing hacking choking) "christian
science"
 >  CH> definition. (let's not go there and say we did.)

 > Funny thing -- even those who HAVE taken the courses,
 > even at
 > post-secondary level, don't necessarily know squat!

 > Even the Piled-Higher&Deepers often lack true
 > understanding of what they
 > speak!

 > The biggest problem, IMNSHO, is they specialize in an
 > ever-narrowing
 > area, and there's a certain benefit in ignoring
 > anything outside their
 > own range. . .

 > Thus, I, with no loonyversity credentials, sometimes
 > can know more than
 > a particular PhD because I've read his papers AND his
 > detractors, AND
 > those in related, but significantly different, fields

 > So I can spot inconsistencies that he's completely
 > unaware of!

 >  CH> Social development does lag yes... and's lagging due to the fact
 >  CH> ignorance and willful stupidity seem to be dominant traits in human
 >  CH> beings.
 >  CH> Sell more papers too.

 > Yes, use the same identifier the homicide detectives
 > use: "follow the
 > money(profit)" -- figure out where the profit angle/
 > factor is & you'll
 > be best equipped to have your best opportunities at
 > your fullest
 > success.

 > Take note of the immovable barriers, and go around
 > them, under them, or
 > do something altogether different for a goal!

 > There's no value in tilting at windmills -- it might
 > make for an
 > enduring tale and cliche, but that won't do you much
 > good in achieving
 > your best possible life!

 > "If at first you don't succeed, try something easier"
 > is my
 > philosophy(part of it, anyway!)

 > And/or "if at first you don't succeed, quit -- no
 > sense being a damned
 > fool about things!" (I forget who said this one, but I
 > liked it!)

---