boo – wishful thinking

hi all

i had blogged this morning about the happy world i envisioned where no one needed to resign or leave

where we could all reflect and grow

but one of the commenters alerted me to the fact that DR had still approved of a new blog entry where the 6 AIM chat is posted YESTERDAY so seems my hopeful post was premature and the #$%& is still flying all over the DR listing of approved blogs / vlogs

ive removed my post from this morning re: RECONSIDERING- DR, JJ, the 2 Editors and myself

ive also gotten emails referring me to other situations re: DR where i dont know the full story etc

seems transparency is a general problem that plagues many groups / organizations?

so im at a loss of what to say and do folks

i love DR very much – i do see its huge potential as a mobilizing force and a beacon and for stimulating thought, creativity, even dissent – if it could just refrain from sanctioning libel / slander / personal attacks etc

puzzled me

peace

patti

Advertisements

56 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. brenster-
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 14:25:36

    Yea…

    Actions speak louder than words.

    I didn’t visit any of that person’s latest posts until one of your commenters alerted about the posting of AIM conversation.

    DeafRead, it is UNACCEPTABLE!

    The DeafRead has NOT apologized for approving personal-attack entries – only J.J. did. It doesn’t look good on DeafRead’s part.

  2. moi
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 14:31:33

    *sigh* I’m seriously considering withdrawing my blog from DeafRead too, with attacks continuing to be approved for publication.

  3. Joey Baer
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 14:48:35

    That’s right – it is time for us to raise our expectations and standards. Enough of low expectations for Deaf people!!! We are smarter than that.

    You are my HERO!

    Joey

  4. Tayler
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 14:58:56

    It may be too early, but I’m investigating into the post you mentioned. It may appear that the post was changed after DeafRead published it.

  5. Penny
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:02:09

    Tayler-

    Here it is since you are looking for this.

    http://www.dbcfacts.com/aimA1

  6. Penny
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:03:54

    Tayler-

    I found this AIM conversation from this blog.

    http://dbcfacts.blogspot.com/2008/07/dbc-temporary-movement.html

  7. Penny
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:05:00

    Tayler-

    Please check who approved this blog…Amy? if so, two roles…naughty naughty!

  8. drmzz
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:06:59

    Tayler, please find that out since that person is aggressively doctoring a smear campaign. It’s clear that there are people who are not listening to DR’s good intentions.

  9. Tayler
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:11:25

    Penny please read carefully. “It may appear that the post was changed AFTER DeafRead published it.”

    I’m getting to the bottom of this. Thanks everyone for your patience.

  10. Penny
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:13:56

    Tayler-

    It was published yesterday and yes it was published AFTER you mentioned about making changes. One of your editors did not comply your instructions. Naughty naughty!

  11. Tayler
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:30:50

    Penny, that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the post was changed after it was published at DeafRead. I can videophone with you to clarify if you wish.

    So far, in the comments of the post in question asked for more evidence and it appears that links were added. Also, the post title is different than what it is on DeafRead, so the title was changed after it was published at DeafRead. Still investigating.

  12. Penny
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:40:01

    Tayler-

    I think I know what you mean now. Ok…someone just e-mailed me to let me know that using thw word “naughty” doesn’t sit well. I want to apologize to you if I offended you by using this word. To be honest with you…I was trying to be funny when I said this. But if I offended you then I am truly sorry. I still like you as a person. You are still sweet regardless if I am not happy with your decision and etc. 🙂

  13. Tayler
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:53:40

    It’s OK Penny.

    I am making a vlog. There will be further revision to the guideline involving “recorded messages”. I was waiting to make the guideline official until the login system and flag feature was finished. It’s a good thing I waited because this will be added under this revised guideline.

    Also, there will be a new guideline to address a new circumstance. This is one of the highest form of abuse. Blogs that change their posts after its been published AND breaches guidelines will be up for removal.

  14. drmzz
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 15:59:47

    Tayler, it figures. An “Ah-ha!” moment isn’t it, folks? Anti-DBC folks’ just as “dirty” as well. It’s time to fess up with this chronic nonsense and put it to rest!

  15. Tayler
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:09:12

    I agree with the “fess up” and “put it to rest”. However, Robert Scoble, a popular blogger, wrote this recently in a post whining about how Tech bloggers have failed their readers.

    “Our commenting systems really suck. . . . Only the most motivated will leave comments. That’s usually someone with an axe to grind. That’s cause we’ve failed you. We haven’t moderated jerks out of our commenting system so now no normal person would go close to anything resembling a modern commenting system.”

    I see parallelism in DeafRead. It’s the moderates that we don’t hear enough from. They care, but not enough to comment.

  16. Penny
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:10:25

    Tayler-

    That is wonderful. I am glad to see there will be some revisions to the guideline.

    I have a question for you. I wonder if it is against FCC policy if a person (hearing or deaf) to publish recorded messages to the public? Can someone be prosecuted for it? I know about phone records but I am not sure about this one. Just curious. I think it is important for us to know about it. I am sure many of us don’t wish to violate FCC policy.

    Thanks for trying your best to improve DR. I appreciate it very much. I still do not agree about two roles but I will stop talking about it because I do not believe to keep bringing it up too many times. 🙂

  17. Anonymous
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:10:30

    just as a reminder: just because someone’s blog isn’t posted on deafread doesn’t mean it’s gone forever. Those of you who feel the DBCfacts website is important in the interests of transparency and integrity can bookmark or RSS feed it.

  18. Deaf Reader
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:15:08

    Tayler, if Barry Sewell changes after it was posted, he needs to be banned from DR permanently. He is not respecting guidelines and doing dirty business. He comes up with a new blog when he already has one. He started DBC Facts and then added It is Coming. Both are related to DBC. It is getting too much and unnecessary. He needs to be stopped immediately! He is being maniac about DBC.

  19. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:22:59

    I can see where you may see how having an AIM log being made public is a bad thing.

    I do have to ask, i notice nobody is talking about the contents of that AIM conversation. Nobody is acknowledging that there are ulterior motives within the core leaders as illustrated in that link. Nobody is also taking in the fact that it was a good idea to see what they were saying cause after all, its not about the babies but oralism the whole time.

    Can anyone enlighten me on these thoughts? Why exactly was it a bad move on DBCfacts.com’s part to show the evidence he was trying to explain to us for some time?

  20. Mishka Zena
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:27:21

    I know that e mails are not protected by privacy laws.

    Someone else mentioned that AIM conversations are also not protected by the privacy laws.

    The privacy laws are still outdated, not yet updated to address the electronic materials

  21. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:29:19

    i forgot to note; regarding the fact that he may have changed the entry after posting on DR; I agree that was a no no on his part.

    I’m curious why there’s an uproar on this post over the fact an AIM conversation was posted but nothing about the reason why using that AIM convo was unethical as evidence.

  22. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 16:59:57

    Everyone, and Patti;

    I just found this blog post by Valhallian; something that i’ve be hoping for a long time. Can i ask you why DBC leaders never developed a plan like this and why you think the leaders executed things the way they did in Milwaukee?

    http://valhallian.com/?p=37

    This again, refers to my stance on DBCfacts.com’s use of AIM conversation as evidence of improper leadership. I’d rather have them exposed and make the appropriate changes.

  23. Bert LA
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:13:53

    MishkaZena,

    E-mails ARE protected by copyright laws, and AIM messages are also protected.

    You are being reckless in your comments. Very reckless.

  24. Mishka Zena
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:27:18

    Bert LA. I suggest you check the information with your lawyer. How do I know this? From my own lawyers.

  25. Jean Boutcher
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:33:00

    I understand not the dilemma about an entry of an AIM chat posted yesterday (I have not seen it as a matter of fact).

    Why?

    Because someone did post DBC’s core members’s AIM chat on a blogger’s blogpost two or three weeks ago. I was reeling from seeing that entry in that a former member betrayed the confidential AIM chat with DBC members. It is my understanding that the poster was demanded by a commenter to prove by furnishing a copy of the DBC’s AIM chat. My take is that that poster could have explained to the commenter that out of respect he could not do that. If a prosecutor demanded, that would be entirely another story.

    Haste not, Patti, to leave. Let us unite and work together to solve problems. Keep hoping for the better.

    Jean Boutcher

  26. Jean Boutcher
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:37:13

    Post Scriptum:

    Posting the confidential AIM chat on a blogger’s post was clearly the reflection of the poor discretion of the blogger. Had I been in the blogger’s shoes, I would have rejected the poster’s comment. That is a cardianl sin for anyone to betray someone’s confidence.

    I feel that the poster should submit an open post of apology to the DBC.

  27. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:40:31

    I disagree with you Jean…

    and you have not answered my questions. If you sincerely care about DBC and it’s supporters, i’d think you’ll want to know what exactly goes on behind their doors. Leaders in any organization are subject to scrutiny. Wouldn’t you like to know what ulterior motives there are with president Bush’s agendas? Don’t we, as the public, have the right to know what goes on with leaders in any public organization?

  28. Bert LA
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:48:18

    MZ, you’re wrong. Show us a written statement from your lawyer stating what you say. It’s not true.

  29. Jean Boutcher
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:52:06

    Whether it is protected by private laws or not, one is still expected to use SENSO COMUNE not to betray someone else’s confidence. Recipients
    should use SENSO COMUNE and show respect for a sender’s
    email or letter.

  30. Deaf Reader
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:52:12

    “poster could have explained to the commenter that out of respect he could not do that. If a prosecutor demanded, that would be entirely another story.”
    THank God. Jean Boutcher has good senses than MZ aka Elizabeth Gillespie. I am surprised that MZ would say Barry needs to show proof because a commenter asked for it. A smart person will say what Jean just suggested in her comment.

  31. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 17:56:01

    Sorry DeafReader; where does MZ say that “barry had to show proof cause of some commenter”?

  32. Jean Boutcher
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 18:00:02

    Dog Food:

    I was not writing to
    you. I was in responce
    to Patti whose wisdom
    I tremendously respect.
    Would you, therefore,
    please read and think
    carefully before making
    a colossal, gigantic,
    vast, huge leap and claim, “J’accuse.”

    Jean Boutcher

  33. Mishka Zena
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 18:09:54

    Why don’t you show us the proof that you did talk with your lawyer, Bert A?

    Deaf Reader, I will appreciate it if you don’t put words into my mouth.

  34. Deaf Reader
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 18:17:18

    DBC, DeafRead & The Truth
    Posted by A Deaf Pundit Mishkazena Says:
    July 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm
    Yes, Dr Hokocan published the AIM because people told him to show the proof or shut up.

    That is where I saw MZ’s comment. She did not bother to say that Dr Hoko should know better not to go ahead and show the proof just because people told him to!!!

  35. Bert LA
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 18:21:06

    MZ, you brought it up, it’s up to you to back up what you say.

  36. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 18:21:39

    Wow Deaf Reader. I’m certainly impressed that you remember a post from a different blog post.

    Now my question for you is; what do you think of the AIM conversation? Are you preferring not to read it at all because it is indeed, proof?

  37. dog food
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 18:24:19

    cute stanza Jean; how long did it take you to write it?

    Tee hee, you’re still avoiding my question. In my eyes you’re just defending an issue of ethics to avoid questioning the validity of Barry’s proof. I think that’s more important than the fact that he published some AIM chat.

  38. Dianrez
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 19:38:38

    Patti, reconsidering your decision to stay with DR shouldn’t happen because a blogger got around DR’s editors. This was a situation not the fault of DR.

    Your last post was beautiful. Please put it back up.

  39. pdurr
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 20:11:32

    dog food

    i read the aim transcript – to me it shows a dedicated group of people working really hard to organize a major undertaking and checking on many important details

    in the process of doing so they make a few comments off the cuff – to me they are not glaring EVIDENCE and TRUTHS that DBC is really just a front for the great DEAFHOOD CONSPIRACY

    the thing that is most curious about it is that barry does not highlight his OWN comments when they are unflattering and he is actually reinforcing a joke that he has highlighted as PROOF of crazed radical anti-CI fanatics. he is selecting how to represent the transcript to us and he does not provide us with the whole entire transcript – if this is the worse they came up with – it really is not a big deal to me as it was obviously stated in jesting form

    Also of note is the lack of any entryby Barry stating his objection to the jokes that are being thrown around or the mention of Deafhood. in fact his comments look like he is cool with things. now all the sudden he sees this transcript as horrible and bad yet during the time of the chat when he had full responsibility and ample time – he never said “time out – im not cool with this”? again it seems to reflect poorly on barry rather than dbc overall

    furthermore – my read of Ella’s comments which barry states are so incriminating are entirely different. to me she is saying – i got other plans i want to focus on etc – sure she is probably referencing the Deafhood foundation

    to me it is not EVIDENCE of Ella’s intent to take over DBC with Deafhood – in fact it looks like an attempt to make a distinction

    i have stated in other places that i dont have an issue with DBC discussing audism, oralism (oral / aural only approach), Deahfood, and colonization – they are integral parts of understanding why bilingualism – biculturalism for Deaf children is NOT accepted in the US today and why oral / aural only approaches still dominant even though their success rate has proven to be very iffy

    all bilingual – bicultural scholarly writings that examine systems in which one language (the dominant language) is given high prestige and the other language (usually the native language – or with deaf folks the fully accessible language) is devalued and suppressed

    so dog food all i can say re: the 6 way AIM chat transcript being posted TWICE by barry is that it is outrageous because it:
    – violates folks privacy
    – violates common courtesy
    – shows him to be undermining DeafRead’s policy
    – only shows 2 pages out of many many many more so we dont have the full picture
    – only highlights sentences Barry feels will be incriminating to his “enemies” and reflect well on him and another member
    – really doesnt have any BIG BLASTING – WOW- i gonna leave DBC news for me – in it

    that folks under stress can say silly things some times – wow that is a shocker??? and worthy of bringing down the organization? WHAT?

    that in a 6 way AIM conversation – things can appear out of sequence and might not be referencing the direct line above it so can be easily misunderstood – sure it proves that

    that barry himself might not be fully following the thread correctly due to the delay timing of some of the comments – sure it proves that

    that Barry is a by any means necessary kinda guy – sure it proves thaqt

    that DR is being played by allowing posts that
    unfairly hurt others and are degregatory and unconstructive cuz barry has succeeded in posting this twice – sure it proves that

    that DBC members were working really hard to ensure that they had alot of important details covered – sure it proves that

    i have refrained from analyzing the 6 way AIM transcript because:
    1. it was never intended for public eyes
    2. i dont want to waste my time proving the obvious
    3. yawn!
    4. i know ya all will just be sharping ur knives. in barry’s mind and in your mind DF – this is a HUGE DEAL. i can not convince u otherwise

    can DBC improve yes sure
    they can and they will

    the issue on the table right now is DeafRead’s ethics – will it continue to approve vlogs / blogs that persecute others and if folks alter their post to include unapproved materials after the fact – will they be removed

    the other issue i have was with the booting of CI online website. i am hoping DeafRead can reconsider that decision as it was injustice and can not be enforced consistently across the board

    peace

    patti

  40. Mishka Zena
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 20:16:20

    Bert A, I’ve stated my facts. I am not obliged to show proof from my lawyers. You stated that I am wrong. Then you prove it, not me.

    Deaf Readers, again I made a statement what Barry did. I didn’t say “Barry needs to show proof” That was you spinning, putting words into my mouth. I do not appreciate you doing this.

  41. pdurr
    Jul 23, 2008 @ 20:25:04

    Yo all

    i think we can chill out re: the legal ramifications as to whether or not its legal to post personal AIM transcripts

    i think generally folks will agree that its not cool UNLESS u get permission from the participants

    i was also thinking about libel and slander and someone brought to my attention that those r very legalistic terms with very specific meanings and probably what i was hoping for from DR editors was:
    to eliminate posts that unfairly hurt others and are degregatory and unconstructive.

    (this does not include comment section – i know the b/vlogger is responsible for the comment section)

    so while legal definitions may be more lenient or stringent that we think or want – there are social rules that we can construct

    re: the recent back and forth – prove it, no you prove it

    im not really enjoying that much

    good night folks

    MUCH MUCH MUCH peace

    p

  42. Deaf Reader
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 03:12:25

    Dog food, read patti’s comment!”barry does not highlight his OWN comments when they are unflattering and he is actually reinforcing a joke that he has highlighted as PROOF of crazed radical anti-CI fanatics.” you are obsessing about finding out what we think of the aim conversation. We are more disgusted with Barry!

    MZ, you are so picky about English. The message is the same. People have second thoughts about YOU. People know Barry is unethical and you didn’t do much to show your disapproval. You are feeding Barry to continue his unethical behaviors. I would like to see you, Amy, and others tell him to STOP! He is making a fool of himself.

  43. Bert LA
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 05:28:33

    MZ,

    You are wrong. I’ll say it again: You are wrong.

    Again: You are wrong.

    Barry violated privacy laws and copyright laws.

    You owe it to yourself to do some real research and present the real facts.

  44. dog food
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 09:05:03

    interesting. Its nice to finally see someone trying to make sense of it from a different perspective.

    Sucks when we have wonderful moderates, like you who really see things in a very good light and provide valuable insight, only thinking about going back and forth between leaving DR or not.

  45. Mishka Zena
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 09:12:28

    Patti,

    I see that others are still disregarding your wishes. Sorry, Patti. You don’t need this in your blog

    warmly, MZ

  46. deb ann
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 10:19:58

    If the post was changed after being published in Deafread and if that post was so abusive, that blogger or vlogger should be removed from Deafread for good because of the way they violate Deafread’s policy. It won’t be a good role for everyone in Deafread.

  47. Penny
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 10:31:13

    MZ-

    Patti got her wishes because all of us agree with her about what’s happening lately. I am glad that Tayler listened to us and made some revision in guideline which he recently announced in his vlog this morning. Yes indeed Patti and most of us got our wishes.

  48. pdurr
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 12:19:49

    my wishes are for us to be kind first and foremost

    i want this for each of us because it is often my biggest area of weakness – i have a powerful “need to be right” but i have been learning that it is often
    “better to be kind than it is to be right”

    i am always looking for ways to have compassion alongside my passion. if i keep company with folks who can be firm with their principles and still listen to others to determine their p.o.v. i have a better chance of being good. if i keep company with folks who are out to humiliate or shame in order to “win” then justice can not be present and for me nor can peace

    i am very thankful that tayler is revising his guidelines

    we who have chosen to stand firm with love have faced A LOT of hostility. we have been split open with folks assuming the worse in us when we have challenged injustice. we have had to worry about our jobs, we have had to worry about our families, we have had to worry about our friends – and who really is our friend? we have had to look hatred in the face and still say – i must stand in this uncomfortable place because i C-A-R-E about u and me and that which is right which is good which is just

    that really is my wish – that we discover a way to advocate that does not involve attacking each other

    i will continue to do my part

    i am thankful to anyone who is willing to come stand with me – i only ask that we approach our task of WAKING UP peacefully and FIRMLY with love

    there is alot of harsh judging going on and an eye for an eye make us all blind and really we should be valuing our eyes and our vision and our ability to SEE first and foremost

    with the brain power and great passion and dedication and single minded focus that so many folks are demonstrated on DR – wow we really could change the world for the better

    thank ya all for making a difference and for CARING

    peace

    patti

  49. moi
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 12:51:01

    Patti, I will gladly stand with you.

  50. Mishka Zena
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 18:04:58

    Penny,

    I was referring to the commenters disregarding Patti’s wishes (last night at 8:25pm) that the dialogue be constructive and peace in her blog, not about Tayler. I hope this clarifies what my comment was about.

    About Tayler and DR, I am glad that we are making progress, where the community is heard.

  51. Jean Boutcher
    Jul 24, 2008 @ 22:00:26

    We thank you, Patti, Joey, and
    Mike (Schmidt). You are my
    heroes!

    It is inconceviable ever imagimable that it took the DR staff two years to develop new rules in DR guidelines. They failed to fathom that my complaint filed in 2006 was ignored AT THE EXPENSE OF some bloggers and readers (go ask Joey Baer). All the DR staff said in 2006 was that there was absolutely nothing DR staff could do as long as DR is an aggregator. It, indeed, does remind me of one of the Aesopic Fables, ignoring the cries.

    Therefore, I am greatly grateful and appreciative that Patti Durr, Joey Baer, and Mike Schmdit finally gave up their v/blogs last week so as to give the DR staff an unpleasantly rude awakening,

    In view of Tayler’s latest guidelines, I sincerely hope that more bloggers and readers who have abandoned DR since 2006 will revisit DR and may resume blogging and reading!

    Please memorize forever that were it not for v/bloggers and readers here, DR would be empty! In other words, the DR staff would not have been hired as dealers because they do not know how to listen to customers just because their skin is soooo thick.

    Soit!

  52. JD
    Jul 25, 2008 @ 03:51:19

    Too soon to be happy about DR and guidelines. Tayler has not done anything yet about Barry Sewell’s DBCFACTS. He needs to be banned from DR especially since he has not removed the inappropriate AIM conversation from his blog. He is not respecting DR guidelines. I find it odd that he thanked Tayler for developing guidelines BUT he himself is abusing people.

  53. rg
    Jul 25, 2008 @ 08:03:55

    To MZ:

    I am a lawyer- and I can tell you that I have to get a court order to get someone’s e-mail.

    The expectation of privatesity is there.

    Courts have ruled on this .

    That is why the police, FBI, etc. need to get a court order to get and read e-mails.

    The only exception is (thanks to the Patriot Act) is national security issues.

    Do your homework next time.

  54. rg
    Jul 25, 2008 @ 08:07:13

    And I have to agree with

    Bert LA:

    Barry violated privacy laws and copyright laws.

  55. Mishka Zena
    Jul 25, 2008 @ 12:00:01

    r g

    you claimed to be a lawyer. Please show proof. 🙂

  56. pdurr
    Jul 25, 2008 @ 12:35:43

    jean and moi – thanks

    nice to be in good company

    peace

    patti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: