Transcript of Open Letter falsely accusing CAD of Discrimination

Many non-signers do not have access to the open letter to Ella and the CAD because it is in ASL without any transcript.
In the interest of making this vlog accessible to Deaf people from a variety of backgrounds – we have a transcript. Please leave a comment of any errors in the transcript so they can be corrected. The original vlog in ASL can be seen at:
Also, embedded in the transcript are comments from People of the Eye – these appear in bold.

Note: to see thetrue facts go to the CAD Bylaws

Open Videoletter by theHolism
Posted October 01, 2009 Youtube and DVTV

Title Frame: Open Letter to Ella and CAD

The Holism: “Hello this is an open letter to Ella and C.A.D. (California Association of the Deaf) . First I want to thank Ella for creating that vlog explaining and expanding that she was NOT on the board of C.A.D. during the time that the word
D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d was put in the b-y-l-a-w-s. I stand c-o-r-r-e-c-t-e-d. I didn’t realize that D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d has been there in the b-y-l-a-w-s since 2005 and I didn’t know how long she served as a board member. When she started to serve on the board? I didn’t not know when. Thank you for that vlog. . I stand c-o-r-r-e-c-t-e-d. That still does not change the d-y-n-a-m-i-c-s o-f this problem so I will move forward and a-d-d-r-e-s-s this issue with you and C.A.D.

People of the Eye: Did theHolism send this correction to the Dept of Justice as the letter he sent them and encouraged others to send contained a direct accusation that PERSON X caused the CAD to put Deafhood into the bylaws?

People of the Eye: Did theHolism approach the C.A.D. and request a meeting to sit down and discuss this matter before sending his misstatements and accusations to the CA Dept of Justice? See

TheHolism: You all know that I sent a letter to California DOJ – Department of Justice. I’ve been in contact with them to share my concerns with the DOJ about the b-y-l-a-w-s under C.A.D. I shared my r-e-a-s-o-n-s, reasons about why I’m concerned about the b-y-l-a-w-s – the point is it discriminates, d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-e against specific Deaf people. I strongly feel in reading the b-y-l-a-w-s that the word D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d is a f-o-r-m of discrimination by m-e-a-n-s o-f p-r-o-f-i-l-i-n-g, this means to identify someone as being “not Deaf enough” whereas “he is Deaf enough” “that one’s Deaf culture – not” “they’re Deaf culture – yes” divide, divide, divide,

People of the Eye: Feelings are not facts and you have not proven that the inclusion of the word Deafhood with the very broad and inclusive definition in the bylaws is in fact profiling or discrimination. The result is that you appear to be profiling and discriminating against certain individuals and organizations that do not fit your world view of things. The AG Bell association focuses on O-R-A-L Deaf and Hard of Hearing folks – it is their prerogative to do so. Why do you not call for them to spell out what this means and how they will prevent any risk of profiling or discrimination? AG Bell can but CAD can’t? (which it isn’t even doing). Why do you feel it is your duty to file a complaint with the CA Department of Justice about word choices that you don’t fully understand or agree with when there are real cases of discrimination and audism (gasp, yes, I used the A word) in our midst?

TheHolism: P-r-o-f-i-l-i-n-g is a f-o-r-m o-f d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n, discrimination for your information. That I feel is not appropriate. It has no place in C.A.D.’s b-y-l-a-w-s.

People of the Eye: If CAD were truly profiling or discriminating we would agree with you but it is not and your feelings and fears are misguided.

Intertitle frame: CAD’s by-laws clearly defined D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d as…

Intertitle frame: a life-long process and experience as a Deaf person.

Intertitle frame: Which is a clear indication of profiling, a form of discrimination against certain deaf people.

People of the Eye: HUH?????? Clear as mud you are.

The Holism: In the b-y-l-a-w-s at the bottom, it states D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d means what? A life-long process and experience as a Deaf person – based on a l-i-f-e l-o-n-g p-r-o-c-e-s-s – this means what? Language, culture – enculturated into the person to be qualified as D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d.

People of the Eye: This is your interpretation not what is stated in the bylaws.

TheHolism: Another person who did not grow up oral, or grew up with a C.I. or was l-a-t-e deafened, or is deaf but is fully assimilated with hearing people, those types of people, they grow up to be 18 or 20, they want to support, join as o-f-f-i-c-e-r-s, they can’t because they are not Deaf enough.

People of the Eye: Whoa??? What page is that on? I can’t find that anywhere. Who said they can’t join? No one has said that – more fiction again and again. Even if CAD wanted to say all officers must be ASL, would they not be within the same rights as the AG Bell Association to require its members to be oral?

TheHolism: That is discrimination. A f-o-r-m of p-r-o-f-i-l-i-n-g which is not permitted by law. Now my question with this word D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d, who has that kind of authority,
j-u-r-i-s-d-i-c-t-i-o-n to decide who i-s Deaf enough and who is not Deaf enough and who created C.A.D. that’s “God to decide.”

People of the Eye: Since the bylaws were voted on by the CAD – the board was authorized to add the word Deafhood. By the way there is no mention of G-d in the bylaws. Not sure why you are bringing up God here. The National Association of the Deaf has recognized the words Deafhood, Audism and even Linguicism in there website in the past yet it is not exclusionary or discriminating.

Intertitle frame: A word becomes valid when we are able to enforce or defend it.

TheHolism: A-s you know words are v-a-l-i-d or i-n-v-a-l-i-d base on our ability, a-b-i-l-i-t-y to
e-n-f-o-r-c-e o-r d-e-f-e-n-d. This means what? If you label me D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d, who gives you the authority to e-n-f-o-r-c-e D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d o-n me? Secondly, how can I
d-e-f-e-n-d myself and say no I am not D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d? Without showing specific
g-u-i-d-e-l-i-n-e-s o-r criteria, c-r-i-t-e-r-i-a to explain it clearly, explaining it with a comprehensive listing, I can’t say I don’t f-i-t that description. O-r you can say you are
D-e-a-f-h-o-o-d and you f-i-t that description.

theHolism: To b-e able to e-n-f-o-r-c-e o-r d-e-f-e-n-d that is important to give support to the word, without that r-e-f-e-r-e-n-c-e you can’t e-n-f-o-r-c-e words on others and they can’t defend themselves. That’s very b-a-s-i-c. B-a-s-i-c law is our right to defend ourselves.

People of the Eye: This is the basic flaw in your premise, you searched and concocted ways to see the CAD bylaws as biased and discriminatory – to the point where you sent false information to the Dept of Justice saying that the CAD bylaws had removed the word hard of hearing, when it in fact appears 11 times. If you read the bylaws for what they are rather than what you try to make them falsely be – you will see that the inclusion of Deafhood is to signify that to be Deaf is a good thing and that is the spirit in which CAD will operate and advocate. There is no criteria of Deafhood BECAUSE they have no intention of using a Deafhood yard stick to see who can come in and who can not.

Intertitle frame: CAD needs to abandon the practice of profiling in order to respect others.

TheHolism: Bottom line, r-e-s-p-e-c-t for you all Deaf people that have different choices and
p-r-e-f-e-r-e-n-c-e. Many of you did not choose their p-a-t-h. Many of you went through being oral, having C.I., mainstreaming, becoming Deaf later – not b-y c-h-o-i-c-e s-o let’s be fair to these people who a-r-e Deaf too. Maybe they are not Deaf b-y your
s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d but in the dictionary the first definition, they qualify a-s a Deaf person.

People of the Eye: Where is your respect? Where is your respect for your fellow human being. You have misrepresented facts again and again. You have distracted, distorted, disinformed, and tried to destroy too many lights, too many peaceful flames, too many good souls who have been ready to take peaceful and just stands. It’s time to stop.

TheHolism: Thanks for hearing me o-u-t.

People of the Eye:

151 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Jeffrey
    Oct 06, 2009 @ 15:20:13


    You are right to write what is right. What you have written above is rather precise and just.
    You are sending shockwaves into the world.

    Waves of truth.
    Waves of change.
    Waves of improvement.
    Waves of love.

    This, collectively, is what wins people over.

    Thank you for this GIFT to all of us.


  2. Carl Schroeder
    Oct 06, 2009 @ 18:13:39

  3. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 01:28:34

    I took both Deafhood 1 and Deafhood 2 courses in California. I was told in an IM conversation near the end of Deafhood 2 class that it was a “miracle” that my fellow Deafhood classmates even allow me to continue to come to class. And that it was a “miracle” that I was even allowed to visit other Deaf people in their homes. I asked, in utter disbelief and shock, why wouldn’t I be allowed to attend Deafhood classes and visit Deaf people’s homes? Should I not continue to class anymore? Should I no longer accept invitations to visit any longer? I was also told that I wasn’t culturally, “deep culturally Deaf enough.” Unbelievable, eh? I was also told that I was a mole and that I “reported” to my bosses, Tayler Mayer and Jared Evans of the events and what happened/who said what during these Deafhood classes. Huh? That was way off base and a false accusation with no merit. I have since kept that IM conversation in it’s entirety and have asked the person who I had that conversation with to please just leave me alone for a while. It’s been a long while since I made that request. I thought I would have some peace from it all but no, I see that the same thing has been happening to others. The same “you’re not deaf enough for Deafhood” slogan. This is not Deafhood at all. This is very hurtful and divisive. It’s emotional and psychological abuse, is what it is. And it needs to stop.

    Deafhood does not belong in CAD’s bylaws. PERIOD.

    Thank you for letting me write/vent here. I have kept it inside for far too long.

  4. Deafchipmunk
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 04:31:43

    Hi Patti,

    I agree with you. His vlog, in my opinion, is unnecessary and unreasonable in profiling CAD and Ella. He has not targeted other agencies such as AGBell, other anti Deaf groups. I find that unacceptable and unhealthy.

    Thanks for sharing your excellent response with us.


  5. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 05:17:23

    HI J
    Thanks for your note. Be well.

    HI Carl
    The video is a bit frozen at times but i got ya
    Comedy of the absurd at times re: letter to Dept of Justice while ignoring the oversized elephant in the room. We live in strange times friend.

    Hi Carrie –
    #1 – i am sorry you had these experiences
    #2 – i got a few questions for clarification?
    The person who made these judgmental and inaccurate remarks to you, was this one of the instructors for the Deafhood class? Did you bring this treatment to the Deafhood’s class attention?
    #3 – you said it is happening to others – pls clarify what you mean.
    #4 – re: the mole – perhaps there is some truth to that? not meaning u are a mole but perhaps this person has experienced people participating in Deafhood events only for destructive purposes? Not sure what DR has to do with it
    #5 – re: miracle – well, when folks get excited about things they can feel like its a miracle. To me its a pretty long time a coming for someone to have finally put forth a word and a framework that for the radical notion that its ok to be Deaf – “it’s a good thing” so for me its not a miracle but certainly a blessing. Veditz knew it, Hanson (Olof and Agatha) knew it, Massieu and Clerc knew it, T Gallaudet knew it…

    We should have the know it to.
    if the CAD bylaws said “no non-Deafhood person will be admitted to our meetings, events or homes” I would totally agree with you – but it does NOT. If the CAD bylaws said “Deafhood = completely DEAF CULTIST, over the top, in your face police to determine who is Deaf enuf and who is not” I would agree with you – but it does NOT.

    You are correct that the treatment you received from one rogue person is NOT Deafhood as defined and proposed by Dr. Ladd nor by the materials and programs I have seen taking place across the country by a variety of folks. How CAD has defined and framed Deafhood is not in the spirit or agreement of what you have experienced at all.

    I will let you know that I have met some Deaf folks who have attended AG Bell summer camp, school, meetings, and conferences who have felt they were not ORAL enough and that too stung. There are children who are being told by specialists and educators that they are not good enough because they do not hear or speak clearly. That ain’t cool in my book.

    Deafhood is pretty much the radical notion that it is ok to be Deaf.

    we have never met but I assure you, I would welcome you into my home. By many standards my home is not Deaf enough nor is it a Jewish enuf home I would imagine. We dont keep Kosher but we almost always do candles and blessings on sabbath. We are not orthodox in our practices but we love people who are. We we often drive to shul and we do have mezuzahs in our doorways and we do not have a Christmas tree even though I am Catholic and we do have a pretty dang good latka party with hearing non-signers galore and Deaf folks from the rainbow spectrum in terms of language and identity.

    Being Jewish means very different things to many folks and folks are apt to judge each other on what it really means to be a Jew but I can assure you that Jews of all varieties are pretty much on safe grounds to say anyone coming into temples, homes, schools to trash talk about jewish folks and Judaism, the people, the heritage can be shown the door pretty darn quickly.

    So me – by many standards I am not Deaf enuf – i will profess this quicker than any Deafhood person would ever say to me. I have alot of hearing and speaking privilege. Being partially Deaf i know audism, being a woman i know sexism, being the mother of two Jewish kids, i have seen some anti-semitism. Being white i have seen some bias and discrimination against folks who are not white and that ain’t right or cool.

    so this is what happens when underrepresented and disenfranchised groups start to realize they have a right to BE – some folks over compensate. Some folks say – anything smacking of the oppressors is smack jack and out of here – however, most of the folks say – we can say its good to be Deaf without admonishing those who have not yet figured it out or who still cling to the ways of the dominant culture at times. I still use the phone at times – not often but I do. I still understand alot of spoken words, I still will startle at loud sounds. Those are all a product of my physiology. I can do those things BUT it should not give me the right to minimize, chastise, undermine, scorn, throw up my nose at those who do not do those things by choice or by biology.

    The crux of the problem we face is that the deafness model pretty much rules the homes, educational settings, and work places of the U.S. and that model says “oh man it is so pitiful and bad that you are deaf – wow – that sucks.”

    So it totally don’t want u being treated badly Carrie and I definitely dont want us to forget about the big bad and chief oppressor which is – the dominant culture still having the believe that to be Deaf = BAD.

    Deafhood will soar if:
    1. folks can see oppression challenge true oppression instead of trying to police each other on what it means to be Deaf or deafless

    2. folks who do have some privilege – recognize it without taking things personally

    3. we all figure out how we can bring our skills and good heart to the table

    but if we are going to be FOREVER picking at each other or distorting and spreading manure whether it be on protesting tent grounds or on each other via the blogsphere or in IM chats then will make slow progress and when we finally arrive at the promise land, we will just turn against each other instead of figuring our how to do it right

    It would be GREAT if more state associations could adopt the radical notion that “its ok to be Deaf” as part of their bylaws – just as women’s groups adopt a feminist standpoint.

    again im sorry you had this experience. Let me know if you are ever in Rochester and thank you for sharing.


  6. agbellinfo
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 05:35:10


    I feel bad for your experience from that one single person of how you were treated and still doesn’t mean that this person represent the Deafhood theory.

    Just like in the Black culture, one single person should not treat another black person as an oreo cookie.

    Don’t let this one person’s agenda effect you like Barry is doing to the whole community which is even worse.

  7. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 09:50:15

    There is more to the story. Carrie was targeted because she is a DeafRead editor, more specifically because DeafRead publishes blog posts from all viewpoints.

    Some people make it an issue when DeafRead publishes posts opposing deafhood, which would be censorship and oppression. In pursuit of Deafhood Foundation’s interpretation of deafhood, they have gradually narrowed their vision, to the point anything opposing deafhood is considered audistic. (Audism is against deaf, not deafhood which John Egbert himself said above is a theory.) Don’t try to deny this – Ella sent me an email saying exactly this.

    Patti, the conduct was reported to one of the instructors. Nothing was done. I think this is the real offense, not the conduct itself because it reinforced the idea that deafhood is for certain people only. This doesn’t agree with deafhood. Action speak louder than words (teachings).

    I might add that distasteful conducts have not stopped. There were unspeakable ones in the past few weeks. It’s not helping whatever cause.

    I applaud Carrie for her desire to learn more about deafhood by taking Deafhood Foundation’s workshops. However it’s frightening when courage is required to take a class. Half of participants at a workshop given at NTID walked out in disgust. People are not taking the classes out of fear or are walking out.

    Just what message does this, together with the distasteful conducts, send?

    I don’t mean to paint such an ugly picture, but these are the facts and if you deeply care about your cause, I would assess it with an open mind.

  8. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 10:09:14

    For all those outside the Deafhood classes who think Deafhood is only for “Deaf Enough”, please remember that Paddy Ladd was raised orally, and mainstreamed.

    Therefore, under the alarmist definition of Deafhood, Paddy Ladd is “Not Deaf Enough” for his own Deafhood idea!

    THAT’s silly!

    I am late-deafened, and also attended the Deafhood 1 and Deafhood 2 classes, and always felt that I was most welcome, even with my awkward sign! People waited until I got my idea out and asked as necessary to clarify that they understood.

    I felt a lot more respect coming from the pro-Deafhood folks than I feel online, where some folks still believe the alarmist definition of Deafhood that would exclude Paddy Ladd himself!

    Hi Carrie! Good to see you here again, and sorry you got “hassled” by ignorant people.

    – Linda

  9. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 10:30:02

    Tayler and Carrie,

    I do not appreciate that BOTH of you using the Red Herring Theory in order to divert the attention to other thing that has absolutely nothing to do with Patti’s original topic… I would appreciate if both of you would respectfully stick to Patti’s topic…

    Thank you,

  10. Nikki
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 10:34:06

  11. agbellinfo
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 10:38:18


    I have never taken any Deafhood workshop and whatever I may say of what I may understand regarding of Deafhood is not the interpretation of what Deafhood is whether is a theory or whatever.

    So what I meant about “this person may not represent the Deafhood theory” is that this person may not represent Deafhood and should have left out “theory”. I am just a layman as of now regarding about Deafhood.

  12. Ann_C
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 11:04:10

    Deafhood has everything to do with CAD, it’s certainly no red herring. That concept has tainted deaf/Deaf relations on DR and DVTV for a long time.

    I grant you that Sewell has gone to the extreme by contacting the Dept of Justice regarding CAD’s by-laws, but Deafhood has also gone to the extreme with what Tayler and Carrie have just described.

    And Carrie and Tayler are not the only ones who have had their motives questioned. Why should Deafhood be questioning ANYONE’s “motives”?

    That just bugs the hell outta me.


  13. Todd Morrison
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 11:28:08

    I find it interesting that the Deaf has to take a Deafhood class… I wonder if people take brotherhood, sisterhood, motherhood, and childhood classes?

    If so, dang I MISSED out! I got brothers and never attended a single brotherhood class…. 😉

    To me it’s really simple to comprehend, it is about one’s journey in life with hearing loss.

    Why so much weight is put on ‘deafhood’? I am Deaf and see me SIGN! Nobody can define who and what I am but only myself…

  14. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 11:54:58

    Hi Patti,

    We have met before. I believe you were in the Bay Area last year, correct? You were the one of the presenters of the Jewish Holocaust film of a Deaf survivor. Please correct me if I am wrong. But I recall sitting there in the audience and watching you tell a story of how when, as a young girl you watched TV and saw how people were being terribly mistreated. You were in tears and your Dad walked in and you said to why, “Why did God do this to people?” and your Dad ever-so-brilliantly replied, “No, honey. God didn’t do that. Man did.” I remember feeling very touched by that comment and your story. 🙂

    When you described yourself as to how much you can speak and that you can hear yet still startle at loud sounds… you described me. I too am “privvy” to speaking well and being able to catch words when others speak to me and etc. etc. But I have never thought of myself as “privileged”. I just grew up without an identity and then went to Gallaudet to learn ASL and then someone told me that I really am deaf and that it’s ok to be deaf… and then I hear about Deafhood and you know what? The moment I heard and saw that term… I realized, “Wow! It’s not ok to be deaf… it’s GREAT to be DEAF!!” You can’t imagine how elated I was, haha!

    Sadly, I was targeted in class. Inside and outside of both classes. I recall noticing that some students were upset about DeafRead and the way editors (yes, I am one of them) handled the posts that come into DeafRead. I never said anything because I know they have the right to be upset and to speak out about it if they wanted to. But, what got to me was the side glances headed my way and the discomfort of some of the students… “Uh, well, uhm, I don’t think that DeafRead should… *glances in my direction* uh, should post those CI blogs…”

    Just to clarify, that’s not a direct quote from any of the students but you get the idea of how it was like.

    So when I started seeing that, I went up to the front of the class and told everyone that on Thursdays, between the hours of 5:30PM and 8:30PM I am not a DeafRead editor but I am a Deafhood classmate. I told everyone to feel free to talk about DeafRead any way they like, be it positive or negative because I will remain neutral.

    Let it be known to everyone out there, Patti, that not *ONCE* did I ever bring up DeafRead in class. And when anyone mentioned DeafRead in class, I remained quiet and just listened. (Hell, there were a lot of topics discussed in class in which I just remained quiet.)

    Yet, in this IM conversation that I had with someone from the class, my silence on the topic of DeafRead was noted and criticized. I was accused of being a “mole” and “reporting” to my DeafRead team.

    I was very shocked… I can see why someone would think that but at the time when I was taking those classes I was just too busy. I didn’t have time or the energy to relay information to the DeafRead team and I’d like to point out that they didn’t harass me every Thursday night at 9:30PM when Deafhood class was over, “So? What happened? Who said what? Did they talk about DeafRead?”

    None of that ever occurred. I enjoyed most of the first Deafhood class and learned a LOT. It was an amazing class with wonderful people.

    On the first day of Deafhood 2, I recall approaching the new facilitators and requesting verbally (ASL) that the class be more positive. (I saw a negative shift towards hearing society (AGBell, speech therapists, etc.) and I wanted to focus more on celebrating Deaf people, not focus on just AGBell and the like.

    But the negativity continued (not all the time) but I felt I was also singled out just because I am a DeafRead editor. I remember sitting near the front on the side in the semi-circle that the class used and having a speaker glance at me pointedly *those glances never seemed to stop!* and announced that DeafRead was terrible and that Tayler and Jared were against Deafhood and whatever. Something like that.

    I finally spoke up. “Why are you looking at me? I’ve never once said anything about DeafRead and let you say whatever you want and yet I feel like every time someone mentions DeafRead, people tend to look at me and it feels like I’m getting blamed here. Like it’s my fault!”

    I turned to look at Ella, who was sitting next to me. She said to me, “It’s not your fault…”

    And then the speaker backed up and changed their stance a little, “It’s not your fault. You can’t help it. You’re just a follower. Tayler and Jared are the ones to be blamed for DeafRead…etc.”

    So I was labeled a “follower”. I didn’t like that at all and before I could say anything else, the speaker went on to talk about their presentation and blah blah blah. Oh wait, I did inquire of the speaker about their thesis that they were presenting. They said that their presentation was based on their thesis which was about 400 pages long. I quipped, “Wow! 400 pages?! Double spaced?” *smirk*

    Patti, I thank you for saying that you would invite me into your home. You, too are welcome to my home as well.

    There is a lot more that was said in the IM conversation (I think we chatted for more than an hour) but I was so stunned and hurt by it all.

    And yes, I did mention it to a couple of students in the class. Now here is the irony! One of those students reported it back to the person who IMmed me! I got a very nice email asking how things were and how was I doing the following day after I approached the student. (This was after DeafRead 2 was finished.)

    I was so busy, I didn’t reply to the first polite email. About a eek or so later, I got another email from the person who IMmed me and they seemed to “recall” the IM conversation that we had and that they even have a copy of it in their computer as well and could we IM again so as to “clarify” certain things that were said?

    What was needed to be clarified? I was told that I was a mole, that I am not really allowed to come to Deafhood class (What was so special about my case? I had every right to be there just like the others who registered and paid for the class, as well.) that I am not allowed to visit other Deaf people in their homes, that I am not to do this or that and that my being on DeafRead was terrible and the whole list just goes on and on.

    I took some time to think about those emails. Obviously someone wantd to do damage control because I had spoken to a couple of students in the class about that IM conversation. (I actually wanted to know if that person had spoken to others in the class in the same manner that I was treated.

    To this day, I do feel that I was singled out. Not by the one person I had the IM chat with, but by 2 or 3 other facilitators and maybe a few students. (I do not blame the students for that is what they learned in Deafhood class.)

    Patti, I was afraid to go to Deafhood class. I went from being totally gung ho about Deafhood classes and bemoaned that Christmas was on a Thursday hence the class would not take place and I lived for Thursdays as it was my highlight of the week. And then I went downhill to dreading Thursdays and feeling afraid about coming to class and worrying endlessly. I actually brought a copy of the IM conversation to the final class with me but I was too scared to show it to people in the class. Afraid of being retaliated against in the class by the facilitators and maybe some of the students.

    Fear has no place in any educational setting. We all have the right to learn in a peaceful and free environment. Free to disagree, free to debate, free to be you, free to be me, but with respect at all times.

    I still stand strongly that Deafhood is for everyone. It’s like childhood… we all had one. But is it right for Johnny to approach Jane and start to bully her because she used to be a little girl? Being a little girl in her childhood was not good enough. However, Johnny states that his childhood was better than hers because he was born a boy, and grew up as a boy and became a man. Therefore, Johnny had a better childhood than Jane ever did or ever will.

    We all travel in our own Deafhood journey… why should I be singled out because of what I do? (IE DeafRead editor.) Why should deaf people who grew up oral be told that they don’t belong in the Deaf Community because they don’t hail from a Deaf family/don’t know ASL/didn’t grow up at a Deaf institution? Etc. etc.

    We are all deaf. Deafhood is for e v e r y o n e.

    Sorry that this is so long.

  15. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 12:05:33

    hi all

    thanks for your comments

    Tayler – i was at the Rochester Deafhood all day workshop and the evening discussion group

    the all day workshop had 350 + participants. If 175 of them walked out i would have noticed. I only saw a few folks leave – some left cuz they had other commitments and couldnt stay the full time, some may have left because they couldnt follow it or they were not interested.

    If people walk out for example from a video aggregator (just as an example) does that mean the workshop or the service or the guidelines or the presenters are all bad and evil and spreading hate?

    re: “In pursuit of Deafhood Foundation’s interpretation of deafhood, they have gradually narrowed their vision, to the point anything opposing deafhood is considered audistic. (Audism is against deaf, not deafhood..”

    I’m not really following you

    Ann_C – not sure i follow u 100% – seems to me maybe cyber harassment and stalking vs. free speech and hate speech might be some of the causes of the controversy within DR an DVTV but im not a regular viewer so im sure im missing stuff.

    RE: when someone goes too far – what should we do?

    Gandhi says no matter how insignificant what you do may seem – it is most significant that you do it.

    Todd – yes there are classes in motherhood and classes and workshops in sisterhood, brotherhood (not re: siblings only but in regards to unity of females or males), parenthood etc

    Deafhood is pretty much designed to counter the “deafness” framework

    like u said – its pretty simple to comprehend

    what i dont understand is why folks are mislabeling and falsely charge a group with discrimination for including it in their bylaws. They never protest or complain when the word deafness is all over the place and supposed to represent me. Im alot of things but I ain’t deafness.

    Linda – thanks for sharing your experiences which are the opposite of Carrie’s it seems

    Aidan – thanks for trying to redirect us back to the topic – the complaint filled with false accusations that got sent to the DoJ

    Nikki – im all for free speech and dissent. I am not for lying, deception or misrepresentation

    I am sorry some folks are not comfortable with the CAD’s definition of Deafhood

    gotta run will finish more later



  16. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 12:10:11

    Patty, you said:
    “but I ain’t deafness” But, of course. Deafness is a noun, you should have used adjective “deaf” as in “But I ain’t deaf.”

    Deaf and deafness is one and the same but used differently depending on how the sentence is structured. There’s no separate definition of it except by certain people who decided to distort the real meaning of deaf/deafness.

  17. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 12:36:10

    Patti, I’ll take your word. My source, I believe, is neutral and so are you. However, I was also told the workshop instructors issued an apology to these who walked out. Do you recall this? I doubt this portion would be fabricated.

    John, that’s understandable however my point still stands if the “theory” part is omitted.

    Aidan, Ann_C’s right. It has everything to do with CAD. If someone doesn’t feel welcome at Deafhood Foundation workshops, and nothing is done about it, what are people to think if they see “deafhood” in the CAD bylaws? I’m just saying. I’m not against deafhood, just that deafhood has an image problem, contributed to by these wrongful conducts.

  18. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 12:42:40

    Tayler- I have seen you going over the line, but not like this one. It is WAY OVER THE LINE! All what you said have made it so obvious that you are biased! You have repeatedly said that you do not even support either side, and that you are completely neutral.

    According to your comment posted here, you are NOT neutral at all! In your comment, you showed hatred.

    So, thank you for your comment, and I am glad for that so that I can actually see your true colors which do not reflect upon your so-called claim that you are neutral.

  19. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 12:44:56

    Tayler- your comment is very misleading. There aren’t any Deafhood Foundation workshops. Those are Deafhood workshops which are completely separate from Deafhood Foundation. So much about your assumption, and quick reaction without thinking twice.

  20. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 12:56:42

    Hi Linda! Long time no see! I know you enjoyed the classes and I’m glad you got such a positive experience out of them. I, too had a great time in the classes except towards the end of Deafhood 2.

    Patti, the experiences that Linda and I had are not completely opposite as we both enjoyed the classes, however my enjoyment soured towards the end when I was being singled out both in and outside of the class. If none of that had happened and if people had respected me and my neutral stance on DeafRead during the class, I’m sure I wouldn’t have felt the fear and worry that I experienced. And yes, everyone in the class experienced it differently. We are all unique individuals with different takes and experiences.

  21. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:08:06

    Hi Nikki, thank you for your video comment. You are right. Deafhood is still a new concept and some people just aren’t ready for it. I am curious since you mentioned my name and acknowledged my experience of Deafhood class in your video, did you mean that my experience is evident that *I* do not understand Deafhood or that deaf people in general do not understand Deafhood? Please clarify. *smile* Thank you.

  22. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:09:14

    Brenster, what did I say that was full of hatred?

    Besides, when I wrote that comment, I was speaking as Tayler, not DeafRead moderator. The only thing I can do as a DeafRead moderator is approve posts, and that is not leaving a comment.

    I believe I’ve been fair. Like I said, I’m not against deafhood. Thanks, Brenster.

    Patti, I missed your question: “If people walk out for example from a video aggregator (just as an example) does that mean the workshop or the service or the guidelines or the presenters are all bad and evil and spreading hate?” — The person who spoke those words to Carrie doesn’t represent Deafhood Foundation. We agree on that, however, like I said, the worse offense, of not doing anything when it was reported to an instructor, does reflect on Deafhood Foundation.

  23. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:27:54

    Just read what you shared, Carrie. It probably wasn’t easy, but I hope that in a way, you feel better.

  24. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:28:58

    Hi Brenster,

    I don’t think Tayler is spreading any hatred or evil against Deafhood. He and I are pretty much on the same page in which we both feel strongly that Deafhood is for EVERYONE.

    It’s for Tayler, it’s for me, it’s for you, it’s for Patti, it’s for the Deaf oralist who refuses to learn ASL because they think that they can speak very well and are therefore better than the Deaf Community, it’s for the Deaf man/woman who was born into a 1st, 4th, 10th, 1,000th Deaf generation family who grew up in the Deaf world/Deaf institution/Deaf university, married a Deaf person and continued to have Deaf children, etc. etc. It’s for the deaf child who grew up being told that they can’t do anything and that they are worthless, it’s for the late-deafened adult who eventually learned some ASL, it’s for the deaf person who wears a cochlear implant, it’s for… everyone and anyone who is deaf.

    I think that Deafhood became confusing for everyone when certain people started to take Deafhood and twisted it to mean something else. I’ve been told personally by several individuals that they do not feel welcome and do not trust the concept of Deafhood because they were told that they are “not deaf enough” simply because they were not born into a deaf family or didn’t attend a deaf school while growing up, etc.

    Deafhood, Deafhood workshops, Deafhood classes, Deafhood Foundation classes/workshops… I think things are getting a little overlapped and maybe that’s what’s causing some confusion here. I do wonder if the confusion is being caused on purpose? To make ourselves squabble and fight amongst ourselves when we should really be in unity *even if we disagree* and stand together as one. I hate pointing fingers at people, you know.

  25. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:29:19

    Carrie, I’m sorry for how class turned out feeling for you! I guess I missed that dynamic, but I also forgot that you were a Deafread editor (I remember now your announcing it in class, but not thinking much of it myself), so wasn’t looking for the dynamic either…

    I keep feeling that there is some misunderstanding(s) here… But don’t know where they are.

    Maybe people need to start communicating again?

    Lots of felt hurt and not that much hurt felt to be done…

    Oppressor/oppressed, I guess…

    But what is really happening here if nobody seems to believe that they actively hurt as much as they feel that they are being hurt?

    This is a long-term, and too-much repeated pattern, and seems more systemic even than individual because of all the repetition of it…

    I’m never even sure when the hurting is really happening, or just expected yet again… In addition to all the real, intentional stuff, we’ve also got stuff that just LOOKS like they meant to hurt you, and after a while, that all just builds up.

    Has it gotten to the point that everybody is “hitting back”, but “the other side started it!” with nobody being all the way sure how this whole Hatfield/McCoy thing even really started? Just a bunch of lashing out and grudges?

    So much for Deafhood theory… What is the Deafhood reality, and how can we make it better?

  26. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:29:54


    Re-read your own comments, all those are obvious of your bias!

    Sure you can leave comments as Tayler, but when you left comments with information re: DeafRead, you are representing the DeafRead Foundation.

    By the way, the Deafhood Foundation is not an organization, so stop keep referring us as part of Deafhood Foundation! The Deafhood is a JOURNEY! Just like Patti said, spreading out misrepresented information, such as “Deafhood Foundation,” is not OK, and I add here, UNCOOL! Yes, there is Deafhood Foundation but our journeys have NOTHING to do with the Deafhood Foundation!

    Please stop contradicting yourself by saying that you are not against Deafhood – your comments and actions show OTHERWISE.

    Thanks, Tayler!

  27. Nikki
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:30:46


    For clarification’s sake, people in general have DIFFERENT interpretations of Deafhood. I am not referring directly to you. Thank you for asking me to clarify on this one.

    May I quote Tayler’s comment above in here : “I’m just saying. I’m not against deafhood, just that deafhood has an image problem, contributed to by these wrongful conducts.”

    This is EXACTLY why I feel the word, Deafhood, should not be in CAD bylaws. At least, not yet. Deafhood has a bad rap.

    Patti, accussing theHolism of fabrication and distorting the truth causes the rift to grow wider. TheHolism is expressing his VIEWS. You are expresing your own views. Should I accuse you for twisting for the sake of maintaining the radical Deaf world view? No. I have no right to finger point using inflammatory terms. Accusing the opposing party for lying does the whole community disservice.

    Hmmm? Patti, I know your heart is in the RIGHT place. I do not doubt that.


  28. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:34:14


    > But what is really happening
    > here if nobody seems to
    > believe that they actively
    > hurt as much as they feel
    > that they are being hurt?

    That was NOT directed at you, but was a general question… I did not see you hurting anybody, and didn’t want you to think I was saying that.

    – Linda

  29. DT
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:38:34


  30. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:40:59

    theholism removed my comments (similar to the above that Paddy Ladd himself would be banned as “not deaf enough” if we used his mis-definition of Deafhood), claiming I had used “bad language”, when I had NOT. However, his claim stands, whereas my attempts to correct his mis-definition are no longer part of the discourse there at all.

    To my view, it is in large part, theholism’s insistance that he “doesn’t need to understand Deafhood” coupled with his insistance on speaking out about it without allowing fair discussion that has muddied the definition and given Deafhood its so-called “Bad Rap”.

    As far as I can see, theholism just doesn’t like Ella, so is against everything she is for (DBC, CAD, AFA, Deafhood, Deafhood Foundation).

    My opinion… I’m sure you have your own…

  31. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:46:09

    I think you mistake my intentions, Brenster. None of my comments are against deafhood. I am stating what has happened, and hope that it helps whoever to get back on the course they set upon. I am sure Patti will vouch for this.

  32. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:48:12


    Yes, I do feel better. I won’t forget the way I was treated and disrespected by certain people both inside and outside of the class but I certainly feel better. I think people need to know what happened to me so that they can have an open mind about what Deafhood is truly about. They need to be able to understand when someone is telling them the twisted definition of Deafhood or when Deafhood is being portrayed correctly and truthfully.

  33. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:48:26

    By the way, Brenster, when you pay for deafhood classes, who do you write a check to? I’m not saying it’s wrong, but that the teachings belong to the Deafhood Foundation, is all.

  34. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:49:21

    Nope, Tayler, I am not mistaken about your intentions. Your comments and actions already spoke the volume. Denying wouldn’t do any good. I see that you did a good job of diverting our attention away from Patti’s original topic. Boy!

    That’s my final comment re: Tayler.

  35. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:51:39

    Carrie, I understand and agree with your remarks. It’s unfortunate with the small number of readers seeing your story, that it has a long way to go. It’s progress at least.

  36. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:53:48

    Brenster, deafhood is part of the deafhood foundation as indicated here:

    Linda, deafhood should have been a stand alone thing where people can choose to live by it or not. It should never have been part of DBC or CAD as Ella had hoped it would be. If deafhood is a journey, it should have been that and there should never have been any “movement” to recruit, reject, what have you’s on anyone.

    For many deaf people who have been deaf all their lives, they do not see the need for deafhood. What the deaf community need is the ability to accept every deaf people as they are regardless of what modes of communication, language they prefer to use, or whatever devices they wish to use. Unity will take us all far. Definitely deafhood should NOT be in any deaf organization’s by-laws. Should never have been part of DBC or AFA.

  37. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:55:48

    Hi Brenster,

    I don’t think there is all that much diversion going on.

    People are trying to communicate what they feel they have experienced.

    It’s like the blind men trying to describe an elephant… One finds the trunk and thinks the elephant is really a rope…

    Carrie managed to find the rear end of the elephant, so the smell is what she got to experience…

    But I keep seeing so many HURT people and also so many people genuinely feeling they are NOT intentionally CAUSING hurt… All at the same time…

    Can both sides be oppressors? Both sides be oppressed? Not even a matter or more or less, but when and where and which individual who is taken to be acting for the larger group?

  38. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:56:54

    I have to add another comment to Tayler, because he gave false information regarding to whom the check was written to…

    A check was written, but it wasn’t even written to Deafhood Foundation! I know that, because I wrote it with my own hand and I have a copy of the cashed check!


  39. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 13:59:05

    Brenster, it seems you missed a earlier remark made by me. In fact, I think you’re missing the whole point. Deafhood has an image problem because of some things that have taken place (facts), and because of this, people are left to question what it should mean to have the term “deafhood” in CAD bylaws. That’s why Carrie brought up her side of the story. There is no diversion, everything that’s been said here is very relevant.

    In all, Ralph Singleton, CAD President, stated that the association is for everyone. We all can take temporary relief in this.

  40. Tayler
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:00:49

    Okay, Brenster, who was your check written to?

  41. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:02:16

    Gamma, I do not see what’s your point. I went to that website, and it’s just a foundation which will be used for various purposes. Read!

    Just because there is a word “Deafhood” in “Deafhood Foundation,” it doesn’t mean people’s journeys are part of Deafhood Foundation. Because I take a class to study the BOOK, people now decided that I’m part of Deafhood Foundation. People do make so much of assumption!

  42. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:02:51

    Nikki, thank you for clarifying, I’m glad I asked. 🙂

    Linda, thank you for clarifying, too that you were not singling me out or didn’t mean me. I understand what you meant. And yes, I don’t think a lot of people understood or realized what I was going through in the class as I wanted to keep the focus on Deafhood and try to learn more from it. It was quite difficult to do that though when I was being subtly attacked and then my own reactions and comments were oppressed in and outside of the classroom. I don’t think you noticed mainly because you were behind the camera often and had to work on the videotaping, etc. part of class.

    And Linda, I’m sorry theHolism removed your comments. You have really good and important things to say and contribute to Deafhood. I doubt you would ever say anything personally negative on theHolism’s blog. I look forward to learning more from you.

  43. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:08:22


    For the record, I do NOT agree with whoever made those comments to Carrie, and I wish that Carrie didn’t have to experience like that.

    All of us are on our own journeys, and have many different and similar experiences in many ways.

    One thing that the Deafhood book is correct: A FALSE DIVISION. I see it all over!

  44. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:08:47

    Hi Gamas!

    Deafhood classes around here tend to be sponsored by a local community college as part of the elective classes in Deaf Studies.

    Several community colleges have done this… I don’t think the Deafhood Foundation was involved in the classes that Carrie and I took, except I remember that one time somebody from the DF came to class and gave a lecture on the Deafhood Foundation’s mission and goals…

    Carrie may remember/know more about that stuff…

  45. Nikki
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:10:55

    Gamas #36,

    Well said!

  46. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:22:13


    I agree with you when you said Deafhood is for everyone – just one thing about it though, I see it ALREADY being inside us; we are ALREADY on our own journeys LONG BEFORE the term, Deafhood, emerged.

    If Deafhood makes one exclusive of others, I would have excluded you and many others a long time ago but I did not. Even if (emphasizing… ***IF IF IF***) anyone tries to tell me to do so, I would not do so!

    I’m just disappointed, because you decided that their negative comments toward you reflect upon all of us.

  47. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:33:53

    Gamas #36, thank you!! You said it right, Deafhood should not be dragged into DBC or CAD bylaws or anything.

    Linda, you are right about me getting the rear end of the elephant. Ugh. (I had to laugh at your analogy, too though. :))

    And yes, Linda is correct in that the Deafhood classes were sponsored by a local community college although I don’t recall having any visitors coming in from the Deafhood Foundation. Perhaps I missed that class? Deafhood Foundation was certainly not involved in our classes, that’s for sure. I do recall at the end of the last class that it was announced how the Summer Deafhood workshops had been approved and would take place. That’s about all I can recall regarding as close as possible any Deafhood Foundation things.

  48. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:37:36

    Carrie and Tayler:

    Carrie: When I read your comments, I suspected first thing is you had a personal issue with this person and you held it inside so long. So you saw this opportunity to use this place to vent your destructive anger by overgeneralizing the Deafhood concept. After you left many more comments… You confirmed my suspect that it has nothing to do with Deafhood but your personal vendetta with this person.

    Tayler: you were so angry with these group who left Deafvideo because they refused to tolerate the practice of Audism in I do feel that you tried to take advantage of this destructive opportunity to attack Deafhood and supported Carrie’s destructive anger…

    What’s more… you would bring up a story that has no evidence that Deaf people left Deafhood workshop in RIT… Your comment is so obvious… I’ve heard this resource of yours… It was from MishaZena. Tayler… I suggest you reexamine your destructive anger… Not worth it to hold on that or it will cloud your judgement…

    After I witnessed Carrie’s comment… It was a wake up call… Deafread editors do across the lines… WOW… For example… Jared paged me through twitter and asked me what’s up with my subscription from youtube on my twitter… I paged him back and told him I didn’t know how to turn it off and to ask him if he could help me. He never responded me… I did find this so weird then I saw Carrie’s comment… Now It does make a sense…

    DeafRead Editors!

    Your anger really eating u up… Find a way to let your destructive anger and ego go because they are really fogging your judgement as editors… Find the peace with yourself as editor and find a way to bring Deaf community back together that it used to be… The first three years… It was champ… after that… it was all fall apart and you all chose to deny your actions and shift blame on those group who elevate their thinking, their spiritual and intellectual level, and their consciousness of Deaf existence, and their expectation of the society and the Deaf community… If they want to move to different site… Let them go with love…


  49. Ann_C
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:40:41

    Don’t know how else to explain this “motive” thing, but here goes.

    Keep in mind, Carrie has pointed out that Deafhood is for everyone, including oralists. Also try to keep in mind I’m not being divisive here, just stating what I have observed online.

    I have seen on DR and other deaf blogospheres for nearly three years comments/blogs by deaf people who were trying to find out about Deafhood and what its tenets were, and were then told by some Deafhood believers that they don’t qualify for Deafhood because they aren’t Deaf enough, don’t use ASL, use speech, they’re colonialized, etc. There are too many instances that I can’t and won’t cite actual sources. This paranoia has shown up time and again. Where is it coming from?

    Again, it’s this questioning of a d/Deaf person’s “motive”. If Deafhood is open to any deaf or Deaf person, then why should Deafhood question a d/Deaf person’s motives to know more about it or to even hold a different view about it?

    Is it any wonder that,in turn, there are d/Deaf individuals who question why Deafhood is in CAD’s by-laws, why Deafhood was a then not transparent (but now transparent)part of DBC, and why Deafhood has an influence on AFA?

    In other words, Deafhood’s motives are now being questioned. Deafhood as a theory has a messy image, like Tayler has expressed.

  50. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:44:51


    Didn’t a guy named Butch come and speak about the DF as part of one night where we had several speakers on deaf-centered businesses?

    There WAS a lot of good stuff in that class. I just wish now that it could have been a more comfortable experience for you.

  51. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:50:39

    Just so people know, Ella Lentz is listed as part of the DHF in the website’s who is info.

  52. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:52:08


    To clarify about “Summer Deafhood workshops.” They are not even sponsored by the Deafhood Foundation. They are not even called “Summer Deafhood workshops.”

    Actually, it is called Summer Deafhood Institute sponsored by Ohlone College (GU Regional Center) offering that Deafhood class. Not workshops, not Deafhood Foundation.

    That’s where the check went to, Tayler!

  53. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:53:20


    You are right in that Deafhood was ALREADY inside of us and that we are all ALREADY traveling our own Deafhood journeys long before the term Deafhood” came into being.But being humans, we all need a label for all the things we experience in our lives.

    Those negative comments/experiences toward me do not reflect upon all of you as you stated in your above comment.

    I would never exclude you when it comes to Deafhood. You, too are traveling your own Deafhood journey. But who am I to decide whether my Deafhood journey is better than yours, or vice versa? You see what I’m saying?

    Part of my Deafhood journey also includes my being part of the DeafRead team. If I was not part of the DeafRead team, perhaps I would not have been singled out inside and outside of the Deafhood classes that I took. I was actually *told* to quit working for DeafRead by the same person who I had IMmed with and who had called me a “mole” and other names.

    I am concerned, Brenster, about the mob mentality that has taken place. I am concerned because suppose I decided I don’t want to support something such as DBC? Am I going to be chastised and abused for speaking out or *gasp* not saying anything at all about DBC. By not attending DBC rallies/events/fundraisers and by not reading up on DBC’s bylaws and by not becoming a member of DBC and by not… just simply not endorsing DBC at all but not really saying anything about it? I don’t want to have to fear for my safety if I decide I want to remain neutral on DBC for the time being without being threatened.

    That’s what happened in Deafhood classes. Students and facilitators all had their own opinions on DeafRead and I kept my word that I would remain neutral throughout it all and I never said anything about DeafRead. And then I was attacked for it…?? That does not make sense.

    So now I am speaking out about it. I am not trying to reflect these negative experiences upon anyone. I am just sharing what I went through and just telling people to please be aware of what may happen. I do not want to see others go through what I did because it is a very painful and hurtful experience to go through which NOBODY deserves.

    Brenster, I don’t know you. But I would certainly respect you if you were a part of a Deaf agency or something because that’s what YOU want to do. Suppose I hated motorcycles or something and I found out that you were a member of Deaf Motorcyclists Team somewhere. Should I try to intimidate you and get you to quit the team simply because I don’t like motorbikes? Does that make any sense at all? No, of course not. But I would like to talk about my dislike of motorbikes in a safe environment where I am not trashing anyone (except motorbikes) and then you can talk about your love for motorbikes without fear of being trashed by me. Understand now? Does that make sense to you?

  54. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:55:24

    gammas- SO? I think everyone already knows that! That’s why many people are against it – just because Ella is part of it. It’s like, let’s go against organizations, groups, clubs that Ella is part of. Your comment proved it! Thank you!

  55. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 14:59:04

    Ann C_

    Don’t you forget about Racism, Sexism, Feminism, capitalism, and Ageism were once messy theory because people who were oppressors or internalized oppressors, tried so hard to sweep them under the rug and would do anything to repress these terms… Now look at these pretty theory… Any theory was once messed, will be useful later in the future… :o)


  56. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:02:09

    Hi Aidan,

    > I did find this so weird
    > then I saw Carrie’s comment…
    > Now It does make a sense…

    Given all the misunderstanding around here, I wonder if more communication rather than just accepting the click of recognition might be in order.

    Not everybody is intentionally distorting the discussion. Many are pretty puzzled and hurt.

    Even people on opposite sides more feel hurt than that their side has been doing the hurting.

    Opening up channels of communication might show other intentions (and might also show you are exactly right, but we won’t know until we can check ALL our assumptions just WHAT is going wrong here).

    Thanks to Ann_C for your explanation of “motive”, but can you expand on why each side feels exactly the same way, but about the opposite group of people?

    Seems to me sometimes either the hurting is not intentional, or it just looked like too-familiar past hurts. …and, it is also sometimes really intended, but, it seems to me somehow not so often as it is assumed to be?

    Not just one side or the other, but a feedback loop between the two sides!

  57. A Deaf Pundit
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:02:17

    I don’t agree with what Barry Sewell is doing to CAD – but the fact that Deafhood’s image is tainted has to be addressed. Why is it in CAD’s bylaws?

    And let’s be honest here: If it was not for the Deafhood Foundation, the community colleges in California would not be offering these courses. The Deafhood Foundation has TREMENDOUS influence on the theory of Deafhood here in the United States.

    They do make a lot of money from the workshops and promotions. They might not get paid by the community colleges, if they aren’t teaching the classes themselves, but make no mistake about it… They ARE profiting from this.

    Furthermore, like Ann_C said above, there are SO many instances on the v/blogs of where people have abused and twisted Deafhood to their own ends, in order to blacklist and castigate their own fellow Deaf.

    The bottom line is, if you do not follow the philosophy of Ella and her group’s version of Deafhood, and you dare to speak out publicly against it, or question them… In their eyes, you are an audist and have an anger problem.

    Is this appropriate? And does CAD follow the Deafhood Foundation’s version of Deafhood? If so, is it appropriate for an organization to be tax-exexmpt and promote this warped version that is causing so much hurt and damage in the Deaf Community?

  58. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:02:28


    You are missing the point. You implied that DH is independent of DHF, which I’m contesting.

    There is NOTHING wrong with you wanting to be part of DH and DH has every right to its existence. But, unfortunately we are seeing that it is not inclusive to all and as part of this post topic, anyone has a right to question the term DH in CAD’s by-laws.

  59. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:04:30

    Aidan Mack,

    I don’t think there is any personal vendetta/grudges being held against one person… to me, it could have been anyone. Only thing is, the hurtful words came from someone I admired and trusted. I can’t continue to admire and trust if the abusive behavior continues. When I was oppressed for trying to speak up about it, I decided to let go and just focus on other parts of my life. I let go of Deafhood and the classes/workshops that came out of it and just did my own thing and grew from those other experiences.

    Now I think I may be back… I do want to learn more about Deafhood. Without the fear and intimidation. I don’t deserve that and neither do you or anyone else. Some people have been fortunate to have a great experience with Deafhood classes/workshops. That’s awesome!

    There is no hatred or anything. I just think that people who endorse a twisted side of what Deafhood is about should be held accountable for their actions and just stop mistreating others simply because they don’t “fit” into what their own definition of Deafhood means.

  60. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:05:21

    Carrie: I must congrats u for diverting the attention from Patti’s topic to you personally… Good job, Carrie…

    This is a Perfect example of using RED HERRING THEORY… People often use this method to divert the attention from a real issue…


  61. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:07:17

    Linda, you have NO idea what had transpired the past two years, plus. If people had respected (even if they didn’t agree) with other deaf people’s views, none of this would have happened. DH had divided people from the start. We all should be able to hold our own views and not be ostracized for it and that is what has been happening. Barry knew that the term deafhood in the by-laws would further divide the deaf community, never mind the illegality of it in regards to tax laws.

  62. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:11:19


    I am sorry… You cannot blind me to your behaviors and your actions… Your comments said them all… It is shame that you would overgeneralize Deafhood for your own personal issue… You can deny all you want… Your business, not mine…


  63. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:12:51


    Carrie coming out and revealing the truth about what happened to her took guts. That’s called “truth”. While not everyone had experienced what she did, it only reveals the exact truth that many others have tried to tell us, that DH is not inclusive. The truth prevails. It always does, in the end. And, if it isn’t inclusive, it isn’t unity. What do you want? Unity for the deaf community or division?

  64. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:21:52

    Check this vlog:
    Audism: Re: Open Letter to Ella and CAD

    I find it amazing to see people still don’t get what is Deafhood concept and they keep on twisting the definition of Deafhood. Here is the definition of Deafhood:

    Deafhood means a process, a journey for all Deaf people. It is not a measurement who is Deaf and who is not. It is a process of becoming the best Deaf human being one can become. By Genie Gertz

  65. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:23:06

    Sorry about the link… Here is the link… You will need to copy the link and paste it in url box…

  66. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:23:16


    Sorry, but you won’t get very far quoting Mr. Sewell to me after my own treatment at his hands. To my mind, elimintating a comment only because it disagrees with what you have said is almost as bad as lying about the reason you did so.

    So when Barry insists that it is Deafhood that is dividing the deaf community, you need to remember how often he kills off any discussion that disagrees with his own, which cannot be causing good feelings in his interlocutors! To my mind, Barry’s repeated misbehavior is probably more to blame for many continued divisions than the concept of Deafhood itself is.

    Why is it I can talk to one person who feels ostracized, then go to the “ostracizor” and get nearly complete disbelief from the alleged “ostracizor”?

    I am experiencing this on both sides. Sure, some maybe lying, and probably more are in denial, but an AWFULLY LOT are just genuinely confused and hurt by the personal accusation against them, and honestly do not understand its reason.

    I suspect that both Ella and Tayler are somehow in that last group, even though on opposite sides in other ways.

    But you’re right, I don’t know everything that goes on. Who the heck does? 🙂

  67. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:33:30


    Carrie and tayler’s comments are pretty obvious… There is no point for you to defend or sugarcoat their behaviors. It has nothing to do with the truth but it has to do with fogging the truth by destructive anger…

    Have a good evening.. This is my last comment since the post is becoming all about Carrie and her little wounded girl inside of her…


  68. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:37:18


    Barry is part of this post topic which is why I brought up his name. He is not the only one that feels DH is dividing deaf people, there are many that do.

    Like you, I have always do not respect a person if they deleted comments. It only tells us that they only want certain comments seen and sweep away the others. This happens a lot in DR, and I’m sure it happens a lot over at DVTV, now that they have this block feature. So, I understand.

    Trust me, Barry was NOT the first person to question DH. There were many more before him. Barry came into this long after the first person including many others touched on this inclusiveness of DH.

    Everything you need to know is in the blogosphere. Just google it up, you’d be amazed. You’ll find many on both sides of the fence and their views.

  69. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:37:20

    hello all

    carrie – i really love what u shared – u have inspired me and ill follow up with a new post soon

    i would like to keep THIS thread focused on the original posting

    its getting sidetracked / scapegoated a bit i fear

    1. thanks for stopping by
    2. Deafhood should be capitalized just as African-American, Judaism, French are – its a proper noun and reflects the use of capital Deaf (cultural / linguistic view) vs the lower case deaf (pathological view)
    3. I dont have a problem with the Jewish Federation giving workings on Judaism or What it means to be Jewish. Glad to see an foundation formed to promote Deafhood – ya hoo i say while u say it is the Great Deafhood Conspiracy. Yes the west coast is gonna fall into the ocean – not because of global warming (forgive me climate change) but rather because of the strong rampant rabid promotion of Deafhood YIKES run for the hills folks and send a letter to the DoJ while ur at it
    4. whether or not Deafhood should be in anyone’s bylaws is really up to the organization and their voting members etc – it is your OPINION it should not be. that is not a fact, my friend, that is an opinion
    5. re: AFA – Deafhood is not in our bylaws

    pls please pretty please stop contributing to the HUGE misunderstandings about words like audism and Deafhood – there is so much disinformation my head hurts




  70. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:49:55


    Thank you for understanding my view. It is true, it took a LOT of guts to tell *my* side of the story of what happened to me. I didn’t make any of it up. I also took a long time away from Deafhood-anything because I needed to heal and try to forget about what happened to me. But now that I’ve read what was stated in CAD’s bylaws… no, I have to disagree with that. Deafhood does not belong in the bylaws at all. It’s being exclusive, is what it is.

    And uh, I hate to say it but Aidan, some people really do not practice what they preach at all. They may say one thing, but they just don’t do it at all. You were not in Deafhood 1 or 2 classes and I do wish you were there so that you could see, feel and judge for yourself what really happened.

  71. Carrie Gellibrand
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:56:38

    Alrighty, Patti.

    Your head hurts, so does mine. Let’s all get back to what you started on in your posting here. I do apologize if perhaps you feel I have contributed to the distraction of your post with my comments but I aim to make it right, so therefore this is going to be my final comment on your posting about this Deafhood issue and my experiences with it. Thank you for allowing me the space on your comment section to speak up. I am honored and much obliged to you. Thank you also for not deleting comments, even though they were not related to your original posting. You are a very patient and understanding person!

    Let’s all get back to your original posting, shall we?

  72. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 15:58:50

    now let us return to the main point

    is it ok to send lies and incorrect information to the Dept of Justice?


    1. he said ella was on the board and got them to add Deafhood to the bylaws – ella was NOT on the board at the time that Deafhood was added to the bylaws

    2. He said the term Deafhood was coined in 2005 – it was in 2003

    3. the term hard of hearing has NOT been removed from the CAD by laws – in fact it appears E-L-E-V-E-N times

    4. CAD’s bylaws do provide a definition of Deafhood in their bylaws

    5. for Four years the word Deafhood has been in the CAD bylaws – where is your evidence that the inclusion of this term has been used to exclude folks???? that is the kind of thing you need to offer to the DoJ to verify profiling and discrimination

    GRADE – F

  73. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:05:09

    Carrie… Don’t you forget that I visited your class.. You told me yourself that you were so inspired by Deafhood class… You came to me and introduced yourself in Deafhood class…

    I took Deafhood workshops four times… I know what I have seen…

    Whats more you assured people in Deafhood class that you would be open mind if they have some issues with Deaf Read and now look at yourself freaking out about how people in your class saying about DeafRead and pissing at these people that you assured that it was ok for them to express their thoughts about DeafRead… Who’s talking about people who don’t practice what they are preaching? Can’t you see that many of your comments are catching 22…

    Don’t try to paint me something else so you can divert people’s attention from a real issue.


  74. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:23:32


    I apologize that it has gone far away from your original post, but I do not apologize for standing up to people who attempt to taint the name of Deafhood with false information.

    For example:

    -Deafhood means Deafhood Foundation
    -Deafhood workshops sponsored Deafhood classes
    -the checks for Deafhood classes were paid to the Deafhood Foundation
    -Deafhood being exclusive
    -“someone wanting to be part of Deafhood”

    and such – ALL FALSE!

    Grade: -F

    Unfortunately, those false information was inspired by your original post 🙂

    OK, now your post!!!

    You made excellent rebuttals to theHolism’s unfounded arguments which are really all based on his assumption and his personal hatred and vendetta of one person. I agree with your assessment that comes up with -F on theHolism’s poorly researched presentation.

    Your post, A+


  75. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:24:26


    I’m sure in the minutes somewhere will reveal who had a motion to add deafhood into the by-laws in 2003. Can you share that? Who seconded it and who discussed it and what were the number of votes for and against in the following section?

    Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a
    California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

    Can you explain what it means and why the need for deafhood to be in that section?

    Thank you.

  76. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:25:30

    Carrie i am very glad you shared what you did – it has given me some important insight and i really do value u so thank u so much


    There are so many contradictions being stated that im just like geez wow hmmmm

    i dont want to bash barry

    i dont want it to be open season on tayler

    i abhor the attacks i have seen been launched against ella

    my biggest problem with theHolism is that he uses and abuses folks

    he said his big issue with DBC was that it didnt have transparency

    i requested for barry to post this mysterious letter to the DoJ but he has not
    when i received it indirectly as was his intention – it had no date and was not properly addressed

    did he even send it?

    if he did it is woefully embarrassing

    it is so NOT NOT NOT cool to waste the gov’t’s time send them B.S.. It is so so so NOT cool sending the gov’t lies. It is so so so NOT cool attacking a wee little organization like CAD when NO ONE has complained of being rejected on the grounds of Deafhood

    it is so so so not cool to frame Deafhood to = not Deaf enuf

    I have had the GREAT displeasure if watching barry go after anything that Ella is associated with

    I have had the GREAT displeasure of watching folks point the finger at the weest things when they themselves are CHA guilty of it

    I have had the GREAT displeasure of watching DR and DVTV get hijacked by the false cloak of neutrality (even the most neutral countries in Europe during WW 2 were the most complicit)
    I can assure you i am not neutral
    if i see lies or untruths i must shout out about it. i have done this repeatedly in the blogworld when folks say that AG Bell wrote letters to Hitler or that AG Bell personally advocated for the sterilization of Deaf people – he did neither. I will also tell ya what he really did!

    I have NO problem with folks expressing their views as long as their views are stated as such and not misrepresented as facts

    Deafhood has an image problem because of who?

    right now today why does Deafhood have an image problem? it is not mostly because folks attended any event or read the book and were HURT

    it is because a few folks have misused it and many folks are misinformed – they are being told Deafhood is against folks with CI or folks who grew up orally or that half the audience in the Rochester workshop walked out

    all wrong information – all untrue

    lets consider their sources

    mlk jr said true peace is not the absence of tension but rather the presence of justice

    so i have to tell all the folks who are defending the Holism’s spreading of lies about the CAD bylaws while pretending he is doing it because he cares about oral and hard of hearing people when
    1. he never made the official complaint / letter available to the hard of hearing and oral public
    2. he never made his open video letter in ASL accessible to them

    to me that is just rude and bad business practices

    if i look harder it makes me squint and say – hmmm maybe he isnt entirely honest about caring so much about not excluding them SINCE HE DID EXCLUDE THEM BY NOT PUTTING IT OUT IN THE PUBLIC IN A LANGUAGE THEY COULD UNDERSTAND

    yes i am very angry

    sorry but i really can’t stand it any more

    the lies are way to deep and high and they STINK

  77. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:28:21

    Then of course, I’d like someone to define who can be part of deafhood? Would it be any one that is deaf and hard of hearing regardless of what view they have about what modes and methods when it comes to language, preferred method of communcation and devices worn?

    Section 4.1 MEMBERSHIP
    The Association shall be open to all subgroups of the Deafhood individuals without discrimination
    on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, or disability.

  78. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:31:32

    Sorry for having gone off topic!

    It DOES seem to me that there is a fair amount of agreement that Mr. Sewell is in a class by himself as far as social misbehavior goes. My own experience with him is completely consistent with the sorts of things that Patti points out in her original post.

    Is it even possible to recognize, much less eliminate, the long-term effects of his repeated deliberate distortions on our dialogue? How much distrust has come become somebody trusted repeated what Mr. Sewell first said?

    There seems to be no way to eliminate his continued predation, because he follows the letter of any set of R-list rules, but any set of fixed rules can be bent so that the actual offense does not occur where Tayler has control.

    This is the problem with any rule-based system. Eventually, you get somebody whose behavior REAUIRES that you make a judgement call, and Tayler has decided to let the letter of the rules allow Barry to continue his misbehavior and predation, as opposed to making his own, perhaps “too arbitrary” decision in the matter.

    Gamas advises me to look back at the online record. Most of the “interesting” stuff has long-ago been killed off.

    The entire “audism” argument is gone… Most everything Barry has ever written or said eventually gets suddenly blown away by Mr. Sewell himself, so the back stuff online only has pointers that go nowhere for the earlier upsets that seem always to surround him.

    The remaining record is insufficient to come to any conclusion but that there are a bunch of people, but Barry most of all, saying things they later want to erase as though they never happened at all.

  79. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:34:17

    Finally, disability covers deaf people, why isn’t that enough? Legally the courts will not recognize deafhood nor audism but legally the courts will recognize the others. I’m done for now. Will wait for your answers.

  80. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:35:38


    Go to google, and select “blogs” in the drop down menu. And google it. Be sure to click on Cache to see old materials that was there. It’s still there.

  81. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:37:51

    gamas aka Barry
    I really do love you

    I really do want you to stop

    Firm with love – thats the path I’m on.

    Disability does not define me Barry at all
    By trying to cram me into a disability framework you are excluding my Deafhood



  82. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:39:06


    I’m not Barry. True biz.

  83. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:40:28

    my bad – who are you?



  84. Deafchipmunk
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:42:46

    Play Video Comment

    Hi Patti, I agree with you all the way.


  85. Shel
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:43:46


    Patti, thank you for translating Barry’s extremely divisive and misleading vlog. Interesting how he claims to champion the nonsigners, oral, etc, and doesn’t ensure that his vlog is translated for the nonsigners.

    Carrie, I am sorry you had to go through what you had. I’m glad you’re still open to the concept of Deafhood, despite your negative experience. I don’t condone any form of bullying. I was once called THINK-HEARING long ago when I was younger, and I remember how much that hurt. I would not wish that on anyone. Horizontal oppression is an ugly thing.

    I’m seeing a great deal of anger on both sides. Linda made a good point about the feedback loop. I’ve been on DeafRead three years, and I’m seeing the same type of hurt, slinging of hurtful words, and attacking and accusations… things have NOT changed. We are STUCK at the same merry-go-round, and no one is getting off, or seem to be able to do so.

    Much as I hate to bring attention to Barry, I have to corroborate what Linda had to say about Barry’s blocking her comments and accusing her of bad language. My comment got blocked under that same person’s vlog. Sorry, Patti, for sidetracking. I will get back to your topic ASAP.

    Basically, my comment asked him if it was true Deafhood was discriminatory profiling against oral, cued, etc…, how he would explain Don G, who grew up oral. He never published it. That is his own right as a vlogger. That is what led me to make my vlog debunking his discriminatory profiling allegation.

    Patti, thank you for pointing out the holes in his argument, and in fact, it complements with my vlog/blog.

    I am seeing both sides coming to the table and hashing out issues, no matter how painful. I’m hoping this is a step toward getting out of that feedback loop and towards a more positive discourse.


  86. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:46:11

    > …this mysterious letter
    > to the DoJ …did he even
    > send it?

    This is a really good question.

    One that his followers should most certainly ask him, because his past behavior suggests that he is more likely to have used his own letter to model the behavior he hoped to inspire in angry others…

    Getting THEM into trouble while he just gets to enjoy the drama, his hands technically “clean” having not actually sent anything to the DOJ at all.

    Those supporting Barry here, please consider asking him outright if he actually sent his letter to the DOJ. If you trust him and he trusts you, you should get a clear answer back.

    I’m curious if you will get a clear answer back from him as to whether he did or did not actually send his own letter…

  87. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:48:29


  88. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:51:01

    I’m done here. Patti, if you can answer my three questions, that would be cool.

    I think a lot of people need to really know these answers. Also, Ralph mentioned that he would revisit the by-laws and get an attorney to look at it, which I think is a good start.

    As for Barry, I don’t communicate with him, otherwise, I’d have asked him.

  89. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:51:07

    Nikki: There are a BIG difference…


    Gamma: I don’t consider myself as disability… I am from linguistic minority… I never lost my hearing. I intentionally be made this way by a intelligent creature…

    Disability represents all different of physical challenges groups… Black community chose to represent as a Black group, not under color of people community… So Deaf community might like to choose represent as Deaf group, not disability group… Many Deaf people don’t view themselves as disability… Disability group is one of our allies… They have a right to have equal access as everyone else… They have their own special needs… Deaf community has a language and a culture that was created by Deaf people…

    Deafhood is an opposition word of Deafness… Deafness is a medical term where it has negative image of Deaf. Deafness is being viewed as a part where it focus on broken ears…

    Deafhood is a cultural term which it has a positive image of Deaf and Deafhood is being viewed of Deaf people as whole being. Deafhood is not limit to Culturally Deaf people, but to any kind of Deaf people… Deafhood theory is to for self actualization and for people to view themsevles as a whole instead a part that they had been focused on since they were born…

    I don’t get why people are having a hard time to understand this.. It is so easy to understand… The first time I ve heard the Deafhood and I understood it very clear… Some people need some time… People like me need to learn to be patient….

    I know I already said it is last comment… Well… Here I was writing another comment… Ahh…


  90. Aidan Mack
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 16:59:45


    Deafhood theory is to encourage Deaf people doing self actualization other than ear-actualization. Deafhood also encourages Deaf people to view themsevles as a whole instead a part that they had been focused on since they were born…

    Excuse my English… I am not going to spend too much time to correct my English. I hope I am clear even my English grammar isn’t perfect…

  91. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:01:12

    Hi Gamas –

    sorry i overlooked ur questions – different comments coming in at different times – i also thought they were rhetorical. I really believe the digging up on who and what was said at the meeting for the bylaws revision probably should have been the HOMEWORK of the accuser.

    And it was 4 years ago and the term has been in there ever since and no documented hate crime or profiling has resulted from “the word” being there.

    Re: legality – dont worry – im hopeful, yes i still always have hope that Barry will post whatever reply he gets from the Dept of Justice. If he chooses not to – there is always the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) folks

    Re: why would CAD dare to include such a new term that seeks to affirm Deaf and Hard of Hearing folks as positive beings on this planet – search me!

    They’re from CA – just a bunch of crazy washed out hippies i guess



  92. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:05:22


    > Go to google, and select
    > “blogs” in the drop down
    > menu. And google it. Be
    > sure to click on Cache to
    > see old materials that was
    > there. It’s still there.

    I looked up “audism” in Google Blogs, and it DID spit out a lot of stuff, but I’m not finding where Ella and Tayler had a disagreement about something he did being audistic or whatever…

    Closest I can find is Deaf Pundit’s blog, but every one of the pertinent links now goes nowhere at all. Since I’ve seen Deaf Pundit sometimes have what I have felt were unnecessarily intense angry responses, I would rather actually SEE the “evidence” and decide for myself what I think, but the stuff is all gone.

    Maybe I’m just being nosy about something that is really personal, but it seems to me that it was at least once public so some people know about it by reading and therefore have more nearly informed opinions, but it is there no longer, making re-examination of the whole situation in hindsight now impossible, and requiring me to decide who I believe rather than being able to decide objectively.

    At least some of this need to decide who to believe is in the mix of our feedback loop…

    Google cache is only good for a couple of weeks or so. Even the cached versions of the links seem to be dead now.

    Any more suggestions?

  93. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:09:11

    Aidan – bless your heart for trying to explain – i kinda got the feeling midway through that Gamas was perhaps not completely forthcoming in why s/he was taking the position s/he was

    My biggest fear is that folks will start saying

    geez we get s#$%^ everytime we use a real word – a word that is documented by scholars a word that films are made about

    a word that is so common sense and everyone knows it but many dont want to name it

    that some of those folks that keep getting accused of being extremist might actually go extreme – and guess what – they would be in their legal right to form an organization and make everyone take the Deafhood oath and wear cloaks and go on marches chanting “Death to hearings cuz they ain’t Deaf”
    and they would be within their legal right cuz free speech baby

    i dont want that at all but if they keep getting pushed into being something they are not – well they might just do it

    becareful what u wish for Barry- the Ella Lentz Association (ELA) may form any minute and they would be within their rights to deny u entry just as the AG Bell association and the ASHA and the ASLTA exclude folks that dont fit their mission

    much peace


  94. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:12:11

    Let’s just cheap out and put the ELA under NAD, which ensures Barry won’t join.

    He’s not a member of NAD… Hmmm… How is his local chapter of the Arizona Association of the Deaf doing these days… Does he know?

  95. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:15:13

    wow gamas got three of u to go explaining and searching


    that dysfunctional discourse really works

    we keep trying to bring it back to the false accusations in the letter and vlog and instead its all about
    1. hey 175 plus people walked out of the Deafhood workshop in rochester
    (total falseness – i was there and also on the committee – we didnt get one complaint)
    2. well where are those minutes from 2005 – that is your own bloody HW not mine – im fine with Deafhood being in the bylaws and i would be thrilled to find out that paddy ladd himself flew to town special to propose its consideration
    3. oh why isnt the word disability good enuf

    wow we really need to explain that?

    thanks all for trying

  96. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:27:32


    I know how you would have answered that question about disability. I asked Patti, not you. 🙂 As a DOD, even I know that legally we are disabled, whether we like it or not. I can assure you that we fall under that term LEGALLY even tho most of us don’t feel that we’re disabled. I’m talking about the legality of this whole thing should it come before the court of law. Yet, I would hope that you challenge those deaf people who are getting disability (SSI and SSDI) and reprimand them for thinking they are disabled, no? 😉


  97. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:28:51


    I see your point… Lots of reasons for things not to be there…

    I just keep thinking that SO much of this is a sequence of increasing misunderstanding(s), and if I could just see what was really said, I could show where the unintended double-meaning was, or where it could be taken a different way…

    Sigh… “Dialogue de sourds” 😦

  98. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 17:42:30

    wow gamas – you are asking why disability does not cover the cultural and linguistic construct of what it means to be Deaf – is that your question?

    also can u supply Linda with the material u referred to as her heart is really good and if folks withhold stuff it kinda raises red flags – good faith effort u know – when u say something u can back it up with the evidence


    shel and Deafchip

    big thanks for all u shared.

    Re: hearing folks in Deafhood – i think perhaps they have a place much like Feminism does acknowledge that a man can be a feminist

  99. Valhallian
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 18:02:14

    Patti, you certainly have opened up quite an interesting discussion. by the way it certainly was nice meeting ya in Rochester when I was up there.

    I do have a question that arose in my head when reading the comments about how deafhood is defined. Forgive me for somewhat hijacking the thread, but I couldn’t think of a better place to ask this question considering the deafhood definition is a hot debate right here in the comments.

    I realize the deafhood is a self journey of a deaf person and what people do not seem to agree on is who it actually applies to and to be honest, I have gotten different definitions of it from different people. I’ve been told that it does not apply to me cuz I grew up in the hearing world, and I’ve been told that it does apply to me and I will agree with the latter.

    My question is this…..what do you call the self journey that a hearing parent undergoes when they find out that their child is deaf?

    In my own opinion, I would consider that as somewhat part of the deafhood journey cuz it requires them to do a self analyzation on how to change their lives for their deaf child…. its a self journey that is created solely by the word “deaf”.

    But that is just my own definition and will not force it upon anyone, however, I would love to know what you guys would call it?

  100. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 18:22:49

    Patti, my comment was directed at Aiden in response to her comment to me which was in response to my questions directed to you. This is getting way off point. As a culturally deaf person, I can and do understand the legal term “disabled” when it applies to us. Let’s just leave it at that. We can argue till we’re blue in the face, we all fall under the term “disabled” in a court of law. Let’s not get so carried away.

    I will try to find the time to google and provide the link of that search and hopefully Linda can weed through them. No promises.

  101. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 18:26:34

    Ok, Linda…here is the search result. I just typed in “deafhood” in the blog search. If you click on page 10, it will take you back to sometimes in 2009. There is more than 10 pages. This goes way back to 2007. So, that is a LOT of reading! Good luck.

  102. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 18:30:41

    Oh, one more thing, Linda. Deleting and blocking comments happens a lot with a lot of bloggers. I know which blogs does that and which doesn’t. Many of us who comment often back then know. If I name blogs, I will only create chaos, so I’m not gonna.


  103. Trackback: People of the Eye « The Deaf Edge
  104. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 18:53:24


    So you are pointing me to ALL the blog posts mentioning the word “deafhood” in roughly chronological order?

    Essentially, this is like the somewhat brusque computer admonition to “RTFM – Read The Fine Manual” (though ususally the word used is not “Fine”).

    You say I can find things out by going back. I’m saying there are significant gaps in the record, so that what is left back there is confusing.

    Sorry, I guess I just thought you had some handful of specific blogs or vlogs, or even a recommendation or two for a particularly wise b/vlogger on the subject that I have not yet seen, so misunderstood the scope of your comment…

    Yet another misunderstanding, but fortunately just a technical one, so nobody’s mad! 🙂

  105. Linda Slovick
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 19:08:50


    I am not objecting to blocking comments per se, but my comment was on topic, brief, politely phrased, and offered demonstrable proof that his MAJOR assumption that Deafhood itself excludes “not deaf enough” was in error.

    I doubt you would have blocked my comment, but would have found some way to counter its reasoning, if you disagreed with it.

    > If I name blogs, I will only
    > create chaos, so I’m not
    > gonna.

    I’m kind of half-way puzzled by your comment, and half-way not.

    Puzzled, because “Darn it! It just shouldn’t BE that way, there’s so much need” but not puzzled at all when I remember the original subject.

    I would like to point out that it is a terrible shame that this has had SUCH a chilling effect on what would be valuable information shared…

    Not to say you should change your behavior… Just saying that it is the community’s loss that this chilling effect on real dialogue seems to be happening all over the place because of “it”, whatever “it” is.

  106. Dianrez
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 19:21:50

    WOW-OW-OW-OW-OW-OW…some of the things said here are truly appalling, and they all center around one word: intolerance.

    There are valuable things written here, like Deafhood is a theoretical framework that has somehow been blown up into a religion or a philosophy.

    No wonder that raises the hackles of people who prefer to think independently (or believe that they do!) As a theory, it shouldn’t threaten some people as profoundly as it seems to.

    Also there will be the fortunately rare person who will just be mean, like the one who ruined Carrie’s experience in an otherwise interesting class and which unfortunately spread like a virus to some others. That should never happen and most of the people here agree on that.

    Or there will be people who enjoy being contrary and play with others for personal entertainment, in the process heedlessly stepping on feelings and personal beliefs.

    Such people are divisive, selfish and harmful to people sincerely wanting to test and exchange ideas.

    This is the measure we need to keep in mind: TOLERANCE AND RESPECT. Anybody who doesn’t measure up to this should be ignored as unimportant and nonproductive, and likely have personal agendas…attention being one of them.

  107. gamas
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 19:33:03

    Linda, if I had given you specific blogs, one side or the other might scream bias. You need to find out for yourself in a very neutral way. I know, this says a lot. You see, I have in my opinion the post that might give you a neutral view but others might say it is not. Click on “by date” on the far right hand upper corner in that search and if you click on later pages, it will take you as far back as 2008 and 2007. You can make it go by date order.

    You have come into this way way later so, I know you are puzzled. But, that is the way it is here. I don’t reveal my real full name for a reason because if I did I would be subject to some witch hunt like others have in the past. Employers being contacted and what not. I try to be as honest and forthcoming as I can be. However because my view is such that I do not subscribe to DH personally and that I think unity in the deaf community should include those that have CI, and those who prefer to be oral even tho I am culturally deaf, even “my” people have turned against me in the deaf blogosphere. It’s not like that out there in the real deaf community as much. I think deaf/hoh people should include all, not ONLY ASL deaf nor ONLY culturally deaf. I don’t know how to really give you information without causing chaos, seriously. It is that bad.

    Deafread’s search function will not show you all deafhood discussed post because many bloggers/vloggers left. They left not only because of deafhood but other issues. It’s not just deafhood here that causes chaos, it’s a lot of other issues.

    Take for example, Aidan. She vlogged about audism and bashed those who have a medical view, those who prefer to use cochlear implant and to speak rather than use ASL, she made it clear that they are NOT part of deafhood. So, I’d be amused if she ever took that back and state that DH is for ALL. Deafhood should be for ALL because we all experience different journey when it comes to DH. That is why I don’t subscribe to it because it divides.

    And as someone who was born into the culturally deaf community, my opinion is that we don’t need that even though I can see how a late deafened or those who’s parents are hearing might benefit from it. Being involved in deaf culture will teach many better than DH itself because its teaching seems to blame the hearings and AGBell for all of their problems. I don’t think that blaming others will take us far. And, that is just my opinion.

  108. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 19:33:03


    nice to have met u in rochester too – i wish someone had filmed us – we were both having a nice innocent chat then u asked my name and u were like- oh i know u from ur blogs and i was like oh – and u said “i blog sometimes too” and i was like oh whats the name and we both kinda just looked at each other

    it was like “friend or foe” “friend or foe” smile

    very funny – what had i said or hadnt or wish i did or didnt to this person out there in the non-real world

    anyways to answer ur question – i believe that Dr. Ladd who coined the term and established the initial framework based on his ethnographic research said – its an open question – the hearing folks and Deafhood

    i dont think he has closed the door and said no entry to the hearing parents or hearing offsprings of Deaf parents (CODAs here in UK called Mother-Father-Deaf i think)

    Shel has a GREAT blog examining Deafhood construct – its in ASL and English and has lots of great comments

    it got me thinking about how men can be feminist – they just have to believe and show that they subscribe to the radical notion that women are people too

    with Gays, Lesbians, African-Americans etc allies are normally what u call the parent of a Gay person who accepts, loves and advocates with their Gay child etc



    much peace


  109. Valhallian
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 19:51:38

    heh patti, I hadda chuckle at your “friend or foe smile” comment cuz I can see where you were coming from. But rest assured that when it comes to the blogosphere and in real life, I try to treat it with the same attitude as where I draw a line between business and friendship. I have had occasions where a business and I would be screaming and cursing at each other during the day and then in the evening we go out for drinks and have a good time as if nothing happened. Nonetheless, it was a good chat that we had 😉

    I will be returning to Rochester for a few days again for the movie shoot next week so hopefully our paths will cross once again.

  110. deafhood supporter
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 20:05:22

    i’m a deafhood supporter but want to point out how ridiculous it is that patti thought gamas was barry. is that how far it has gotten? there are people who do not accept deafhood and never heard of barry.

    btw, bren, how can deafread be biased if this post is on deafread? also deafhood wouldnt have gotten as far as it has if not for deafread.

  111. Trackback: “People of the Eye » Blog Archive » Deafhood, Lies and the Blogsphere
  112. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 20:25:19

    oh i thought gamas might be barry not because gamas was critical of Deafhood but because gamas was using some of the same exact rhetoric and tactics

    as i said my bad

    re: your observations on how bad it has gotten – yes indeed

    if you support Deafhood – you might want to capitalize it in the future. just as i wouldnt write jewish or african-american….

    im sure you already got that from reading the book etc and its just a typo



  113. brenster-
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 20:35:40

    LOL, Patti- Love all your comments with humor here and there. Keep going!

  114. Nikki
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 21:05:57

    I can affirm Gamas is NOT Barry. In fact, I suggested that Barry take a look at this blog and he might want to make a comment. He said he was not interested.

  115. Jean Boutcher
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 21:13:15

    Hi Patti,

    Rest assured, Barry Sewell’s letter will be either dismissed with a polite explanation or tossed into a wastebasket by a staff without ever going to one of lawmakers in the higher departmental level of the Department of Justice.

    Ella can file a complaint against Sewell for behaving like Capt. Ahab obsessing (harassing) with Moby Dick (Ella). I think Sewell lives in
    Northern Nevada.

  116. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 22:03:46

    Nikki – not sure why you felt the need to affirm – i already immediately said “my bad” to gamas

    not sure why u felt a need to suggest that theHolism take a look and make a comment. he is an independent self-reliant thinker after all

    and the truth is like kryptonite perhaps

    i do love your vlogs nikki

    i can not tell u how much the Three D ones meant to me

    much peace

  117. Valhallian
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 22:36:44

    Jean, not my intention to purposely put you on the spot here and would like further clarification or you can correct me if I am wrong, but since when did the DoJ have lawmakers? Thought they only enforced the law, not making laws?

  118. pdurr
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 22:41:54

    well help her out Val

    what do u call those blokes that look over these complaints????

    justice guys and gals?




  119. Valhallian
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 23:05:20

    hmm i’d think that DoJ’s are under attorney generals so I’d imagine that they are lawyers who investigate and enforce laws, but then again I am not 100% sure what they are called, which was why I asked. I’d think they would work with enforcement agencies as well.

  120. the one and only ridor
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 23:33:58

  121. the one and only ridor
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 23:59:12

    hi ridor

    i had to remove this comment due to your naming specific folks negatively without proof and cuz as u noted it was cha off topic



  122. the one and only ridor
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 00:25:52

  123. the one and only ridor
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 00:58:47

  124. Karen Mayes
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 05:29:52

    Hi Patti,

    I read the comments… I noticed that the tread went differently from the topic of your posting. However, the comments contain valid points.

    I more or less agree with Nikki’s vlog on Deafhood in DeafRead… I notice that one would think a person as an angel or another would view that person as a devil. How do I feel about Barry’s reporting to DOJ? It’s his right and I don’t know the whole story about CAD, bylaws, etc., because I am not a member of CAD nor of NAD, so I have no business to say anything about it. So I stay out of this topic.

    I just wanted to say that the comments got me thinking.

    Have a good day.

  125. pdurr
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 06:02:38

    Hi karen

    Care to comment about the errors and myths in Barry’s letter to the D o J?

    Im kinda puzzled by how you say it’s Barry’s right to send a letter to the DoJ but since your not a member of the CAD nor the NAD you have NO BUSINESS TO SAY ANYTHING

    You also say you stay out of this topic – you seem to have not really stayed out of the topic at all. Oh well me confused.

    Hey what did you think of Ridor’s idea – i really thought he had a clever idea. He said Where every Ella goes Barry is not far following behind her to meddle in affairs – so he wondered what would happen if say ella were to join perhaps the AG Bell Association? (which would never happen he quickly added) but i dont know about that Ella seems to be willing to do almost anything for the greater good and since Barry will go to great length to go after anything and anyone except for deafness / deafless systems and Granddaddy of them all – it might just work. smile

    have a great day Karen



  126. Karen Mayes
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 06:25:57

    Hi Patti, I was talking about freedom of speech… like I had a right to send the letters to Wisconsin governor stating that AFA did not represent me. That’s what I was trying to say. I was NOT talking about CAD/NAD/etc because I have NOTHING to do with them.

    I was talking about the comments which got me mulling over the people’s stance on Deafhood.

    I stay out of the cyberrelationship between Barry and Ella. If you want to talk more about it, you are welcome to get involved. I am not interested. Instead, I’d rather discuss the nonpersonal stuff, not personal stuff. Deafhood is an impersonal concept dealing with the personal approaches, personal beliefs, etc. But for character attacks… I’d rather steer clear of it… sorry, Patti.

  127. agbellinfo
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 06:50:58


    Nilkki’s #114 comment,
    “I can affirm Gamas is NOT Barry. In fact, I suggested that Barry take a look at this blog and he might want to make a comment. He said he was not interested.”

    This made me wonder about Barry’s letter to DoJ in California…..he did not post the letter for us to read. if Barry is not interested to make any comment, was he actually telling the truth after all about officially mailing the letter to DoJ in the first place or actually lied just to create a commotion with Deafread readers?

    I think someone should try to verify that Barry is telling the truth about the DoJ letter.
    And if he lied about this, Tayler Mayer should contact Barry about this or suspend his misleading “propaganda” V/Blogs so this will not happen again in the future.

  128. gamas
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 07:18:25


    I’m not twisting. Many have seen how deafhood itself is not on the same page with a lot of deaf people. Everyone has their own definition. I mean, the concept is from a thesis. Paddy’s thesis. But, I guess I will have to find out for myself, won’t I?

    This may be a personal vendetta between Barry and Ella, that much I will probably agree, understand that I do not know either of them personally.

    My point was why add deafhood to CAD when you already have “disability” and we fall under that. Many suggested CAD should get an attorney to review it. Do it.

    And, Patti never answered most of my questions so, I am in fact wasting my time. Even more interestingly she assumed and judged me, I don’t have time for that either. 🙂

  129. Trainwreckd
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 07:18:52

    I wonder who encouraged or influenced people to have concerns about what affects Wisconsin citizens and not those of other states.

  130. pdurr
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 13:23:31

    apologies in order

    When I assumed that gamas might be Barry – I was wrong and in error.

    Please forgive me gina gamas.

    Yes, i have become very jaded because of many past dealings with theHolism

    for example – if folks leave a challenging comment – he removes it and then writes:
    “I had to remove your comment because of your bad language….”

    I had actually seen their comment and there was no profanity or even anything bad – it just was challenging

    so yes i have become very “grrrr – raving red head here” and my sarcasm is not always so pretty if u r on the receiving end so for others i have hurt – i d apologize

    re: my comment to val in response to HIS comment about someones use of the word lawmakers – i wrote:
    well help her out Val

    what do u call those blokes that look over these complaints????

    justice guys and gals?




    The person took offense that i was insulting them. To YOU i really do apologize. U are a gem and a good soul and i NEVER would insult u.

    I was making a dig at Val a bit – cuz i think he can take it – smile and cuz i thought his honing in on your use of one wee word instead of looking at your overall comment without offering a correction was a bit condescending so i gave him the chance to offer u an alternative term as a solution and perhaps to help him see – we DONT KNOW WHAT TO CALL THOSE FOLKS hence i understood why u used the word lawmakers and i was cool with it

    was trying to direct folks to stop being so nitpicky and look at what is being said

    so now maybe i will have offended Val – who i really do enjoy and respect

    so my biggest apologies to J. I meant you no disrespect but u have shown me that my sarcasm is harsh and easily misread

    i definitely am exasperated so the “coming from LOVE” is a bit diminished for me

    re: my use of PEACE – i think it still holds accurate

    MLK Jr said true peace is not the absence of tension but rather the presence of justice

    it is NOT “JUST” for anyone to be told you are not welcome or valued because of the type of hearing loss u have or upbringing u have

    (carrie’s experience was due to her being a DR editor which is a whole nother can of worms – any takers?) I still really regret she had that experience

    but regardless of the cause – using someone’s degree of being Deaf or deafness to exclude ain’t cool

    using someone’s degree of Deafhood to say they are radical militant extremist profiling discriminator anarchist aint cool either

    john – i think u would be within your rights as a concerned citizen to call the Dept of Justice – doesnt seem u need to be a resident of CA (although i guess if your forefathers hailed from CA and were in CAD u have some added clout to complain)
    re: Wisconsion and AFA – again i kinda see a contradiction Karen – u say u stay out of CAD and NAD cuz u aint a member but Barry isnt either (of CAD at least) yet its within his right (not necessarily his duty) to try to blow and throw red hearings at CAD and Deafhood

    are you a resident of Wisc or a member of AFA?
    not really sure how that ties in as it contradicts ur principle of staying out of things but i do commend u for taking a stand for what u believe in – mandatory insurance coverage for CI.

    Hey does everyone know there is an organization run by a CI doctor called “let them hear” that is lobbying hard and long to get mandatory insurance coverage of CI

    If any Deaf group launched a “let them be Deaf” campaign what would happen? Especially if that person was associated with Deafhood. And while the selling of Deafhood is not $80,000 for billaterial ASL implants – it surely is very lucrative – lets go see their financial report – no for G-d’s sakes i did not mean the “Let them Hear” group – they have every right to do what they are doing and that Doctor really has every deaf, disabled, small d needy deaf childs and their parents best interest in mind by trying to make them as less deaf as possible and only deaf when they sleep

    oh my gosh – there goes my sarcasm again

    someone pls save me from myself – ; )

    hoping for reason, wisdom, FACTS and TRUTH to re-emerge at DR and DVTV

    much peace


  131. Trackback: The Deafhood Controversy « Gamas Wanderings
  132. pdurr
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 19:34:52

    Over in Gamas blog (see above link) she wrote
    “…when Patti Durr did not answer questions in relation to the term deafhood within the California Association of the Deaf (CAD) Bylaws,…”

    I asked tried to recall which questions she might have asked that i missed – it was busy last night and at times others seemed to be addressing questions cuz i was not glued to the terminal but apparently that was not sufficient so Candy Gina Gamas posted this comment to my reply over in her thread so ill try to address those questions below her comment:
    Patti, my questions were in #75, #77, and #79. It’s your blog, you chose to respond whichever fashion. Please do not answer these here. They should be answered over at your blog, if you so wish.

    I wonder, tho… Does DH teach that deaf people need to be wary of the language of the world at large (English, in America)?

    Everyone has a different writing style and I have my own speaking style. Fact is, it’s the way it is.

    1. i have no idea what Gamas is referring to re: Deafhood and English – perhaps another myth spinning?

    2. re: #75
    i did answer part one in #95 no.2

    3. re: #77 many folks have commented on a definition of Deafhood and its inclusive nature etc but still you have insisted on spelling it with the lower case and trying to find one type of person who Deafhood might say – nah ain’t part of Deafhood so my question is do you really want to hear our answers or have you already decided what it means.
    The way it is pretty much defined with in the OVERALL CAD bylaws is that – wow its good to be Deaf and ASL is cool and if you are hard of hearing, later deafened etc or use diverse communication u are part of CAD

    u can find that stuff through out the bylaws

    #79 “why isn’t disability enough” cuz some folks would like to define themselves not by what they can’t do but rather by what they can do and what makes them unique as a cultural and linguistic minority

    so the term “negro” and “colored” were legal terms and maybe the term racism wasn’t so much but some Black folks got together and got busy doing some marching and they got busy doing some peaceful sit ins and they got busy doing some affirmation and they got busy doing some examining of the unexamined and they found out – hey we can call ourselves African-American!

    sure some folks said:
    – dont rock the boat negro is just fine
    – some said I dont know nothing about Africa – do not call me African-American
    – some said not African-American geez it should be Afro-American
    – and some said Black is beautiful

    If ya all want to define yourselves as disabled and part of deafness that is your right. If you all want to be seen as disabled and your rights to always be framed around disability rights vs. human and linguistic rights that is your right BUT by insisting that Deafhood can not be part of bylaws or foundations, or organizations you are actually practicing discrimination and exclusion.



  133. the one and only ridor
    Oct 08, 2009 @ 20:21:19

    Your last comment, durr, is right on the target!

    And I wonder if Gamas gets it?

    Only time will tell.


  134. brenster-
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 06:11:22

    Patti did great in replying. Yes, I noticed the same with Black people having different preference in what to call themselves. One person asked me how to sign her skin, I told her Black or African American. She said, okay, BLACK. At first, I thought she didn’t catch what “African American” meant, so I repeated explaining the “African American.” She said yes she understood, but she preferred Black. I pondered for a while, and asked her later why did she prefer BLACK over African American. She explained. I told her, wow that’s so same with Deaf and HI and other deficit labels. That was years, years ago, but that concept always sticks to my mind!

    In my opinion, when gamma, aka, Candy intentionally keeps the Deafhood term in lowercase “d” as in “deafhood” (although knowing the which is more appropriate), she is intentionally showing disrespect. That, I’m done with her, and no point in trying to talk it out with her.

  135. Ann_C
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 16:40:59


    I think you’re nit-picking on the capitalization or non-capitalization of Deafhood. Lots of people, in their hurry to write a comment, often forget to dot their i’s and cross their t’s as well. I don’t think Gamas intended any disrespect for the term Deafhood by not capitalizing it.

    ull note that patti herself doesn’t capitalize except for Deaf and Deafhood and doesnt use a lot of punctuation herself

    so get off your high horse



  136. gama
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 17:50:33

    Brenster, I’m following the English rule here. I’m not always perfect, but I try. Deaf is capitalized only when appropriate such as the first word in a sentence or if it is part of a title. Deaf is not a noun. Take it up with William Bullokar.

  137. brenster-
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 17:53:14

    Ann_C, you know that it is not it but it was fun reading your falsehood.

  138. Ann_C
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 18:20:21

    Say, brenster, wouldn’t Deafhood, capitalized or not, be better than some other *choice* words that people have used, capitalized or not, in place of Deafhood?

    Don’t push your luck. 🙂

  139. brenster-
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 18:56:41

    Ann_C, it’s really pointless but it is on your time.

  140. Dianrez
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 21:03:33

    When my youngest daughter was still in middle school, her best friend once told her “cut out the African American crap. I’m black. Get used to it.” Classic.

  141. pdurr
    Oct 11, 2009 @ 08:21:45


    not sure how there is a high horse as i was told the horse was dead (u know that poor beaten thing)

    Because all the Deaf Cultural Studies literature (yes published materials by scholars Deaf and Hearing alike) RESPECT and put forth the use of the capital D as a PEOPLE

    when other say – i know plenty about deafhood thank u very much – Im really confused cuz the field and the construct of Deafhood explains why it is VERY VERY VERY important to capitalize D for Deaf and Deafhood

    so that was just a bit confusing to me

    and cuz the d and D distinction were originated to help clear up the confusion – r u a good witch (Deaf is fine) or a bad witch (deaf is horrible, an affliction, something to be eradicated or overcome)

    last year i got REAL confused in the blog sphere – i wanted to respect those folks who prefer to be called deaf

    and i wanted to respect us folks who want to be called Deaf so i started using D/deaf

    which is kinda clear as mud smile

    so i thank folks who keep pushing and painting this as if extremist because they are causing me to see how the more effort u invest in making folks feel welcome and included the more folks will say not enough – what about the one armed deafened person who can not sign yet – what about them

    well of course if they got the right attitude and they wanna be part of Deafhood and will / are learning ASL welcome welcome welcome

    but for the folks who are determined to say i can be an audist and part of Deafhood at the same time – i say hhmmmmm can u conduct an ethnographic study about that to flesh out ur theory and get it passed by a dissertation committee of Hearing and Deaf folks

    otherwise i think its more smoke and mirrors

    u say potato i say potatoe

    we will see

    it certainly is getting interesting

    im fully prepared to see a TOTALLY NEW WORD OF DEAF NATURAL SIGN LANGUAGE PEOPLE OF THE EYE emerge in international sign language first – im not worried about the English of it and i dont want it to have any any any connection with the physical state of not hearing so that we can finally free ourselves of this poor four letter word and how tall the first letter is or is not

    thanks all



  142. Mishka Zena
    Oct 12, 2009 @ 09:12:08

    For AIDAN,

    I do not appreciate you slandering me, falsely crediting me for being the source of the ‘information for the Deafhood workshop walkout’. For your information, that so- called walk out is news to me. I heard a lot of people attended it and that’s all I know.

    I would suggest you verify the information first with me before spreading it. It doesn’t look good for you to be caught spreading misinformation. Thank you.

  143. Mishka Zena
    Oct 12, 2009 @ 12:13:06

    removed by the moderator as unrelated to this original thread

  144. the one and only ridor
    Oct 12, 2009 @ 12:42:30

    removed by the moderator as unrelated to this original thread

  145. pdurr
    Oct 12, 2009 @ 16:16:47

    re: 142

    This original thread is about the spreading of misinformation against CAD and Ella

    Tayler is the person who made a comment that half the audience at the Rochester Deafhood workshop walked out

    FACT: THERE WERE OVER 350 FOLKS THERE AND ONLY A FEW LEFT FOR VARIOUS REASONS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. I was on the committee and we received no complaints about the workshop so the accusation stated was not only hearsay but also false and damaging.

    falsehoods and untruths are harmful to the creator of these falsehoods and untruths as well as to their target and the larger community.

    In terms of Aidan’s comment naming you – i had overlooked that otherwise i would have removed ur name and had asked her to remove her comment if she was uncomfortable with my choice.

    Aidan has had her share of false accusations thrown at her also. SInce you addressed the falsehood here in comments – we will leave Aidan’s comment here

    in terms of slander, libel, false accusations, harassment, old grudges but mostly AUDISM – this was the main reason i boycotted DeafRead for 1 year

    sad to see the old practice rear its ugly mug in this space

    In terms of the stuff between you and ridor – they should be taken elsewhere as they dont relate specifically to Barry’s actions against CAD, Ella and Deafhood




  146. David
    Oct 13, 2009 @ 06:00:40


    CAD is a member owned association, not board owned association. Thus, board members do not have the rights to modify the association bylaws. See your bylaws ARTICLE XXVI AMENDMENTS

    Section 26.1 The Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws of this Association may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3)vote of the membership in Conference assembled.


    Section 27.1 Thirty members in good standing shall constitute a quorum of the Association at
    any regular Conference meeting.

    BTW: Deafhood is cool word, it is about individual journey and accepting their deafness,its way of life and empower to make their life better.

    Deafhood, in my opinion, has nothing to do with deaf culture and/or mastering in ASL — it is all about individual person being deaf and growing/accepting deaf of all kinds.


  147. Mishka Zena
    Oct 13, 2009 @ 07:58:33

    Patti, I appreciate you removing the comments. I was out of town for over one week until two nights ago and had no idea what was going on until someone alerted me that people were falsely accusing me. Otherwise I wouldn’t have left a comment to field that false statement. I am sorry your blog got derailed even further as I do know how it feels to see a thread go off a tangent.

    Again thank you for moderating the comments and ensuring that a constructive discourse takes place. It’s not an easy task, especially with a sensitive subject where so many people feel harmed and experience anger. I am hopeful more people can discuss this more objectively without personal attacks.

  148. pdurr
    Oct 13, 2009 @ 09:35:56

    Hi David –

    I assume that CAD had 30 folks at the meeting way back in 2005 when the bylaws were revised

    Barry’s issue is not with the how of it but rather with the what of it – he is PROCLAIMING and SLANDERING and LIBELING with all the falsehoods in his open letter to CAD and Ella and his text letter to the Dept of Justice

    Accusing CAD of profiling and discrimination by saying “We know for a fact that ‘hard of hearing’ term is no longer in the by-laws.” That is UNTRUE, INCORRECT, WRONG, F for Falsehood worth.
    TRUTH: We know for a fact that the by-laws has the word hard of hearing ELEVEN times in it. The CAD was obviously not trying to prevent folks who identify with deafness over Deafhood from joining because: (all facts folks)
    1. they have Hard of Hearing 11 times in the bylaws
    2. disability 3 times
    3. deafness 3 times
    4. lower case d for deaf many times
    5. the dreaded Deafhood word 5 times

    if there WAS some kinda conspiracy to IMPOSE THE WILL OF RADICALL EXTREMISM DEAFHOOD (feel the spooky music vibrations folks) they would have done a much better job of it

    Im glad u think Deafhood is cool
    not sure what you mean by it not having anything to do with Deaf culture or natural sign language
    but understood ur other points

    thanks for the comment



  149. David
    Oct 14, 2009 @ 18:04:34

    I thought you said, “the bylaws were voted on by the board – i would say that the board gave that authority to add the word Deafhood….” Well, I agreed with you in regard to Barry’s issue… It is seemed to me he is borderline on being impulsive scatterbrained manner.. I don’t think DOJ would do anything; maybe refer it to IRS re: 501(C)3 status. I don’t know…

    Let’s discus on why “deafhood” may has nothing to do with Deaf culture nor natural sign language

    suffix – hood

    e.g. neighborhood, parenthood, priesthood, brotherhood, sisterhood, childhood, adulthood, babyhood, boyhood, girlhood, manhood, womanhood, widowhood, fatherhood, motherhood, knighthood, sainthood, statehood


    #1 A group which are similar in some respect — a specified class, profession, etc.

    e.g., neighborhood, priesthood, brotherhood, sisterhood, deafhood, knighthood, sainthood, statehood, etc

    #2 state, quality, condition, stage

    e.g., childhood, adulthood, babyhood, boyhood, girlhood, manhood, womanhood, widowhood, fatherhood, motherhood, deafhood, etc

    You know, “Parenthood” as in Planned Parenthood – it does not care if you are white, black, brown, rich, poor, smart, dumb, ASL, Signed English, Cued Speech, oralist, big “D”, small “d”, member of a certain culture or whatsoever as it offering a variety of services to any one who is going thru the “parent” stage

    Brotherhood/Sisterhood — meaning of the state of being a brother/sister come first. Like Fraternities and sororities – they do not care if you are white, black, brown, rich, poor, smart, dumb, ASL, Signed English, Cued Speech, oralist, big “D”, small “d”, member of a certain culture or whatsoever as long as you as a brother or sister member helps your members better themselves in a social setting within their own group.

    To me, “Deafhood” meets both definitions:

    #1) a specified class having people who are deprived of the sense of hearing wholly or in part; and

    #2) a stage or state in which distinct time period in a sequence of ‘awakening’ events dealing with their hearing loss that is incompatible with other conditions/stages –
    e.g., deaf child grew up years after years dealing with their hearing loss in the auditory world and suddenly learns s/he functions better socially and intellectually with deaf people alike than being with non-deaf people — in the process of learning the differences, s/he eventually accepts their deafness and its way of life.

    You and I, as a person, already experienced hearing loss and accepting it in a positive way. Your deafhood journey or experience (as defined in #2 a stage or state) may have different level or degree of acceptances. It varies between you and me. You feel great being part of the big “D” world and I feel great being part of small “d” world and yet, we both went thru our own personal “deafhood.”

    I do think “Deafhood” as annotated within CAD bylaws is referring to the 1st definition, a specified class having people who are deprived of the sense of hearing wholly or in part – as like in Parenthood and botherhood/sisterhood. CAD should not care if it members are white, black, brown, rich, poor, smart, dumb, ASL, Signed English, Cued Speech, oralist, big “D”, small “d”, member of a certain culture or whatsoever as long as they as CAD members help making CAD a viable and strong association working and helping any people who are deaf in being great productive citizens within the State of California.

    Is CAD in business to help people who are losing hearing to accept their deafness and its way of life and forcing them into Deaf or ASL Culture?

    That is my point — Deafhood should not have anything to do with ASL or specific Deaf Culture of your choice.


  150. Trackback: Oppose b.s. « PEOPLE OF THE EYE -…first, last, and all the time” – g. veditz 1910
  151. Trackback: Credibility loss of 200 dB and dropping – More b.s. made self-evident « PEOPLE OF THE EYE -…first, last, and all the time” – g. veditz 1910

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: