People of the Eye ends its blog at Deaf Read

I had boycotted Deaf Read as a b/vlogger for the past year because it published atack vlogs that targeted individuals who supported ASL and Deaf culture. It also carried many v/blogs that engaged in falsehoods and deceptions. I resumed blogging in People of the Eye 2 weeks ago on good faith that Deaf Read would honor its word to add audism (or equivalent) into its guidelines as promised.

Deaf Read has not honored its word that it would be adding audism (or an alternative term) to guideline #8. Email commitments were sent to People of the Eye re: adding audism up until July 1st and on October 3rd an email commitment said that disability and cultural group would be added to the listing below which would cover ableism and audism/linguicism.

From DeafRead Guideline # 8

(We will not post anything that is an attack on a specific race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orienation, age or religion. This offense is serious and the offending blog will be promptly considered for removal from DeafRead’s subscription.)

These commitments of adding disability, or cultural and linguistic groups have NOT been honored so People of the Eye will be closing down and resume blogging at (pls subscribe / RSS feed etc) with the request that any future entries not be automatically lifted by Deaf Read or Deaf Video.TV due to those venues sanctioning bigotry and aiding persecution by posting entries that attack specific groups.

Again as i have b/vlogged in the past, I truly regret the necessity to boycott DR and DVTV. It breaks my heart. It is a shame. I can not understand why DR and DVTV are comfortable specifying specific groups (see above) and have made promises to add terms that will include Deaf folks as a linguistic and cultural minority (as well as disability for those who do not identify with Deaf ASL culture); yet, continually falls short on implementing this promise. It is a simple 5 minute word processing job. No codes involved. I do continue to wish DR and DVTV all the best and hope for the best that it will do the right thing – adding a specific statement opposing audism in both DR and DVTV.

NOTE: if i can not find a way to transfer all the past entries and comments from this People of the Eye b/vlog site into the new one at Handeyes – i may consider closing down the site completely as I am uncomfortable with it remaining in the Deafread listing.

To all who have visited People of the Eye and left comments or just viewed the entries and discussions – I thank you and see you at Handeyes’ People of the Eye or at the youtube account

“The Intellect of Women” by Agatha Tiegel (first Deaf woman to graduate from Gallaudet 1893) reminded me a bit of our duty on this planet…and made me think of the dangers that DR / DVTV falls into (and any of us for that matter) when we feel we must limit ourselves to already establish limits (i.e. guidelines from other blogsite and aggregators that are unaware of Deaf culture and ASL)

“her real self lies dormant. She is content with superficiality in thought, attainments, and conduct, and forgets that she is in the world to help it by action.”

She closed her speech with: “She herself is too strongly impelled by a noble hunger for something better than she has known, too highly inspired by the vista of the glorious future, not to rise with determination and might and move on till all barriers crumble and fall.”

May Deaf Read and DVTV and each of us have a noble hunger to rise up and move onward till barriers fall away – whether they be racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexualism, audism, linguicism, ableism, etc



32 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. moi
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 06:19:05

    Don’t close this site down. What you can do is contact the DeafRead editors and ask for your blog to be removed from their listing, effective immediately. That’s what I did with mine. I know I haven’t blogged since then. But there are advantages to keeping the site open and not changing web addresses, but being off DeafRead completely. Just a thought…

  2. Karen Mayes
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 06:35:02

    moi is correct… you’d not lose anything if you just removed your blog from DR.

  3. patti
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 06:46:45

    I did email the DR editor requesting that hence forth People of the Eye not be listed but no reply

    my concerns are:

    the url of this blogsite have DEAFREAD in the address

    Moi i believe ur blogsite does not have Deafread in the url?

    so i think my blogsite here POTE is a bit held hostage.

    i am not comfortable with blogging in a site that has DEAFREAD in its url while im in boycott of Deafread

    If Deafread can honor its commitment to add audism (audism would cover both Deaf as a disability group and Deaf as a linguistic / cultural minority) to the guidelines then ill sit pretty and all is well with the world – justice for all etc but since i was given numerous assurances in written emails that it would be doing so but never has – i really can NOT trust it

    and ive grown very tired of checking the guidelines #8 to see it be same ole same ole when told repeatedly it would be changed

    and im on a truth force campaign

    im apes#$% about bulls@#$

    if ur not part of the solution u r part of the problem

    still hanging out in DR or being listed under the banner of DR in ur url while they refuse to do what they committed to do and refuse to take a stand on the side of justice – aint cool

    how do i remove People of the Eye from DR when:
    1. editor does not reply (i had asked for advise on how to lift the site out of DR way back this summer when it looked like they would not be adding audism and i wanted to resume blogging here but never got a response except for – “give me a definition of audism and we will add it to guideline #8” – which i did and they didn’t

    2. even if DR replies that it will sever the draw down of my blog entries into DR (why do i have to request this – why cant i disable it myself as i choose?) – DeafRead will still be in my URL – for me that is a problem – it doesnt honor DR by having it in my url address when i am boycotting it and it doesnt honor what POTE is about – social justice and truth force – as best i can endeavor one day at a time

    pls advise if u all know the magic answers of HOW i can do it for MESELF



  4. MM
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 10:44:52

    I’m afraid I do tend to agree with DR regarding audism, because it is so hard to prove without a real definition in regards to it being applied to other deaf people, just because someone wears a CI, has a hearing aid, is ‘d’eaf, or oral, or uses signed english, does NOT make them audist, yet is often used as a criteria.

    It is then a matter of people taking offence because they don’t agree, how can DR enforce a difference of opinion, without taking sides ?

    Personal abuse is easy to solve, I solve it easy on my blog, they are abusive to others, out they go, not rocket science.

    It should be the bloggers onus to stop its own comment sections being used to attack others. DR can issue the 3 strikes you are out ultimatum, and few would disagree. Perhaps more priority given by DR to this aspect would help.

    DR (Americans), seem more scared they will be seen as anti-free speech, not an issue I have difficulty with, I can respond to a difference of view, anyone being nasty, free speech doesn’t apply.

    It is up to the blogger to be pro-active, of course the DR ‘opt-out’ is there too, ignore the creeps, try it….

  5. Karen Mayes
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 12:08:03

    Well, I am sorry that you have issues with DR and DVTV, but may I point out that YouTube is more hostile than DR and DVTV? There are hundreds of videos advocating for sexism (there are many videos depicting women in questionable taste), racism (check out KKK videos… ouch), etc. And the comments…*shudder* And you are with YouTube *shrug*

    Well, freedom of speech should embrace the opinions and prejudgices… as long as they don’t PHYSICALLY harm anyone.

    DR and DVTV will move on without you… like they did when you left several months ago.

    I wish you well in your journey.

  6. DT
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 13:11:05

    I’m sorry to see you go, Patti but I must echo the sentiments of MM and Karen. U’d be better off staying….

  7. tayler
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 13:51:31


  8. MeBrainZero
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 14:21:01

    A deaf person is considered an audist when they knowingly use their ability to speak, their ability to hear with whatever residual hearing they have, or their mastery of a language to belittle another deaf person who also happens to be afflicted with similar problems in a predominant hearing world.

    Please note that it is not always an act of belittlement but can also be a measure to mark oneself as better suited to merge with the normality of human existence.

    Some deaf people practise audism with the intent of reducing their own sense of feeling inferior in a society that communicates both aurally and verbally.

    Perhaps when the word is finally noted in a dictionary of scholastic merit, it will be easier for people fathom what such a word and the usage of it truly entails.

    As for DR and DVTV, let me just say this:

    Many Deaf people, NOT ALL, but many of them wish to gather at a place that does not include the pathological aspects of being deaf. Many people want to delve into topics that are uplifting for those that are comfortable with their being deaf. They want to celebrate with pride and joy the uniqueness of being deaf. They wish to do this without being reminded by others that there exists an ideology that we are almost subhuman if we are not capable of communicating the way the rest of the world does. In this particular case, with speech and hearing.

    It has nothing to do with how well a person hears, how well they speak, what type of communication modes they use, or what kind of technology they utilize.

    It is all about the attitude of the person and how they view their own deaf being. Many deaf people see themselves as a lesser person because it was the way they were brought up to view themselves. As a result, they feel that by adopting an attitude that corresponds with the one of the overall hearing world, they are strengthening their status or self-worth as a person.

    Like there many ways of explaining audism, there are just as many ways of misunderstanding it.

    It is okay to be tolerant of differing views but it is not okay to harbor views that instigate further divisions. Deaf people who are happy with their being deaf deserve to have a place to celebrate in solidarity. A place that reinforces self-actualisation that results in a celebration.

    A place to celebrate being deaf as a natural and beautiful part of the living world.


    Emotional and psychological harm is a PHYSICAL experience.

  9. Tayler
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 14:36:19

    Hi Patti, I’m home now. I was reading DeafRead Mobile while standing in line at a store. I’ll write a response. Sorry about the comment above, I tried leaving a comment from my pager, and it wouldn’t cooperate.

  10. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 14:47:23

    MM – “attack on a specific race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orienation, age or religion” are hard to identify and define at times yet DR has these spelled out in their GUIDELINE.

    All i’m saying is “attacks on a specific cultural and/or language group” should be added as well – as should the term disability

    re: the term audist – i wasnt even discussing that here and i personally dont know anyone who calls someone an audist simply because they have a CI or are oral

    Karen – my issue is with Deafread having all of those listed protected groups yet not including language and cultural minorities as well as disability groups

    re: youtube they do have various groups in their guidelines and its up to the community to report it and them to make rulings

    DeafRead has repeatedly promised that it would be including audism but has not kept its word.

    FYI – hate speech is not limited to physical harm

    re: DR and DVTV moving on without me – i certainly do hope so

    thank u for the kind wishes re: my journey – i wish the same for u

    DT – i can not fathom how i would be better off staying in Deaf systems that refuse to take a stand against audism and linguicism

    this is all very curious lines of logic

    Tayler – not sure what “Bdjd” means

    Mebrainzero – thanks for your comment. I think you are discussing dysconscious audism?

    me im very weary of labeling anyone an audist except someone who has shown a clear pattern of audism

    im more interested in identifying the behaviors and how to combat them peacefully

    having “audism” recognized as unacceptable in the guidelines is not gonna make the planet stop spinning or audism stop – its just gonna be one wee step in the right direction – a step toward justice and equality



  11. theHolism
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 15:42:31


    Blaming Tayler for your own communication failures with the deaf community is all you are doing, really.

    Oh I know because you tried to pin much of the problems on my shoulder but unfortunately for you, it didn’t sell.

    Good riddance.


  12. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 15:52:40

    Tayler – thanks for clarification

    theHolism – no comment
    too tired to correct all the errors and falsehoods in your comment above



  13. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 15:55:55

    new post re:
    speaking people only, trailblazers, gallaudet president at:

  14. dog food
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 16:23:01

    at least the deaf internet will be with one less irritating outlet of taken-too-seriously debate.

  15. A Deaf Pundit
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 16:23:56


    I am curious – what is stopping you from blogging on whatever you want?

  16. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 17:07:06

    dog food – i beg u to change ur screen name

    Deaf Pundit – nothing is stopping me from blogging on whatever i want

    but im not sure i understand what u mean by “on” – on as in topic or on as in whatever blogging system i desire or on whatever aggregator i desire or on whatever day i want – smile

    my issues are
    1. i dont want my blog People of the Eye carried by the Deafread aggregator until DR adds audism to the guideline #8 as they already state they wont publish attacks rooted in racism, sexism, heterosexism etc

    2. the People of the Eye blog site here has DEAF READ in the url
    i have requested before how to de-Deafread the blog from the URL address and from it getting grabbed and listed in DR to no avail

    hence the new site at

    hopefully ill be able to transfer all the b/vlog entries and comments in this people of the eye site over to this new site

    if i misunderstood ur questions pls clarify


  17. Tayler
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 17:23:07

    Hi again. Here’s my response. Peace.

  18. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 17:48:38

    this is my reply to tayler’s response over at

    it is awaiting moderation

    hi tayler

    i want to reiterate aidan’s sentiments – I love you. I truly do. That ain’t gonna change.

    However i have emails from you dated July 1st that you would be adding audism to the guidelines (after you requested from me a one sentence definition of audism and after you said you had discussed it with our editors)

    you never did – i had checked in with u a few times afterward and no response

    i had said – if you have changed ur mind – fine how do i move people of the eye so its not a Deafreadblog (its in my url address etc) no reply

    month passed

    DVTV walk out happened in sept – many folks feel that audism is the root of some of the attacks in DVTV

    u vlogged that u hadnt ever gotten any email complaints about audism prior

    WHAT – what was all our email exchange in june about?

    i email you for clarification – what do you mean audism was never brought to your attention as an issue with the guidelines by anyone prior?

    Oct 2 we have a videophone conversation after a few days of emails in which u stated u had consulted with team members etc

    in the Oct 2 VP chat i asked for confirmation – you will be adding cultural groups and disability to the DR guideline #8 and you said YES

    on oct 3 you confirm via email that you will be revising both guidelines this week

    IF DR and DVTV did not recognize other groups such as (race, age, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) i could understand why you would be reluctant to add the concept of audism to your guidelines

    it is not easy to enforce your guidelines in terms of determining what constitutes attacks based on race, age, religion….

    but Deaf Read and DVTV have decided that those groups are IMPORTANT ENOUGH AND WORTHY ENOUGH OF JUSTICE

    Deaf ASL folks and folks who identify with a disability are IMPORTANT ENOUGH AND WORTHY ENOUGH OF JUSTICE as well

    you have offered to transfer all my blog entries and comments over to the new site – thank you. this is what i asked for last july when it became apparent that you were no longer going to add audism as promised despite no replies from you to my inquiries and requests to move over my stuff if u no longer wanted to put Deaf ASL culture and deaf as disability on equal footing as other groups

    I do love you with all my heart.

    I hate seeing the pain you are in

    I hate seeing that i am the source of some of your pain

    Many folks said the name and plaque of AG Bell at NTID was no big deal and just leave it alone and move on. ignore it etc

    u were one of the people that championed that cause because it WAS and IS important

    This is too

    much love and peace


  19. Dianrez
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 18:23:05

    “im more interested in identifying the behaviors and how to combat them peacefully”
    (from above comment)

    Patti, I think you’re more valuable if you stayed in Deafread and kept hammering on this point. The founders and editors of Deafread are busy people with other commitments and it’s going to take time to push them to do it.

    Taking an exit in protest is only going to make you less easily accessible (being human, most of us prefer relying on aggregators rather than setting up a impossibly profilerating list of bookmarks.)It also removes you from a position where you can needle the Deafread staff more effectively.

  20. A Deaf Pundit
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 18:24:27

    Hi Patti,

    Thanks for answering my question. That does clarify a bit. I understand your stance about audism and that audistic posts should not be allowed on DR.

    I agree with that. Hate speech has no place on DeafRead or DVTV.

    I think though, there’s a bit of difference of opinion on what constitutes as hate speech here on DR and DVTV.

    Can you please pinpoint any blog posts that you feel that are audistic hate speech?

  21. aidan Mack
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 18:38:10


    I really thought that tayler is trying to have a open dialogue with you but after I read the post of Re: Dr. Hurtwiz. Now I feel so sad…

    Some people do not know how to direct their grudge… Shame… Some people don’t realize that their grudge against people would hurt them more…

    Patti… I am sorry that you had to deal with this situation…. I did leave some more comments to share my concern under both blogs… and they are being under moderation…

    My heart is breaking….


  22. aidan Mack
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 18:39:41

    I must say I agree with Dianrez… You are valuable to Deafread and Deafvideo…

  23. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 19:28:38

    this is the reason why i feel u have been a trailblazer in many ways. so too with aidan – u both have stayed with DR through and through and to be that voice and to take a stand

    i hear ya – i gotta figure out what is better needling or taking a firm strong stand with love

    i wouldnt be advocating for this – had not the owner and operator himself said that they would be doing this and since it is a reasonable and just request

    im still hopeful that cultural groups and disabilities will be added to the guidelines and then – me be back

    i think Tayler alluded to that he was still open to adding it in his first Patti blog this evening


    Deaf Pundit – havent really been following DR postings for one year so i cant really cite anything specifically – i did blog about it when i saw it in DR last year and i have seen it in DVTV

    If in fact there have not been any or many cases of Audism blogging in DR – that doesnt seem to be to be a justification NOT to include it. I assume there havent been any or many cases of SEXISM or RACISM in DR blogging either but still DR has the guideline;
    “We will not post anything that is an attack on a specific race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orienation, age or religion. This offense is serious and the offending blog will be promptly considered for removal from DeafRead’s subscription.”

    Attack on a specific race, gender….

    all of those are hard to identify but DR has stood by them


    is not this a case of audism itself – its fine to list race, ethnicity, gender etc cuz hearing blog aggregators have those but they dont have anything related to audism so therefore we can’t – huh??????




    Im confused too and my heart is breaking also

    really loved alot of what u wrote over there

    true peace warrior u were being
    aidan is the handeyes people of the eye site saying – waiting to be moderated when u comment or do u mean taylers two blog entries?

    maybe if everyone who feels that audism should and can be added to the guidelines in DR and DVTV makes a blog entry about it that will help make the invisible visible – the omission will be seen and folks will say – hey justice for all

    stand and be counted – eyes on the prize

    much peace


  24. Barb DiGi
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 19:53:44

    Patti, Aidan and the others, you go!

    The whole point is to RECOGNIZE and ADD the term, audism, to the guideline #8. I join Patti and the others to take the stand that an absence of audism in the guidelines is not to be tolerated at all!

    Patti said it well:

    “….its fine to list race, ethnicity, gender etc cuz hearing blog aggregators have those but they dont have anything related to audism so therefore we can’t – huh??????”

    So that is what it struck me how DeafRead is so conformed to the ways of hearing policies or guidelines instead of tailoring to the needs of Deaf people. The definition is not clear enough? Go and do your research by Tom Humphries. It is loud and clear of what audism is and of course, it has a lot to do with common sense. For one who can hear and speak is NOT audism but it is about how one degrades the ASL/Deaf community just because they don’t speak and use sign. It is all about negative views against those who don’t speak not about what they are capable of. It looks like a lot more discussion relating to audism need to happen since not everyone understands it well.

    Really, there is no reason why we should have to make a list of examples by going back in DR to prove that audism had taken place or not. In other words, we should not be digging for dirt or waiting for more of audism-related blogs to happen as DR should be proactive instead of being reactive. Dig?

    Thanks Patti for all what you do!

  25. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 20:22:26

    big thanks barb

    ur last comment really got me cuz i feel like crying – really hate for this to be so personal

    don’t want t see anyone attack anyone – just wanna see the bloody guidelines include audism



    In case folks dont know what Aidan and i are referring to
    earlier today i have a blog entry at the new site – handeyes people of the eye about
    Speaking People ONLY, Who’s your trailblazer, and Gally Prez

    and Tayler created a 2nd Dear Patti blog entry in response to that blog entry (see tayler’s y3 blogsite)



  26. Trackback: “People of the Eye » Blog Archive » my replies to tayler are “awaiting moderation”
  27. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 20:56:19

    other comment in Y3 still awaiting moderator

    Posted October 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    hi tayler

    more puzzles – my comment here is approved and up by my comment in the Dear Patti thread is still awaiting moderation when it came in earlier – hmmmm – wanna check spam folder?

    if u cant see it – i also posted it over at handeyes people of the eye in case folks want to see it our you need to copy and paste:

    re: your Dear Patti … Again Re: Hurwitz posting here above – here is the link to my positing that i guess inspired this blog entry for you

    so if i read your comment to Aidan correctly – you are very angry with me for not list ALL the reasons – i only listed the reasons that i had seen

    hadnt see the reasons you listed – can you give me a link to any blog or vlog that explains these protest plans because Dr. Hurwitz is not Deaf enough?

    very curious that u have created these blog entries and not addressed the main issue – YOU KNOW THE GUIDELINES AND YOUR LACK OF ADDING AUDISM TO THE GUIDELINES

    re: your questioning my truthfulness – pls know that i speak the truth. When i say that i love you and i believe in you – i am being truthful

    much much peace


  28. kim
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 21:02:58

    I hate to see you leave as I like to read your posts and viewpoints very much, even when we disagree.

    I changed my blog from blogger to wordpress and was able to import all previous posts– lost a few readers– but it turned out OK. I’m much happier with wordpress. Good luck with your new blog. I’ll add it to my reader.

  29. pdurr
    Oct 19, 2009 @ 21:13:24

    oh kim – u r a good soul

    really always loved ur blogging

    hoping to have all the stuff make the migration over fine. fingers crossed

    many thanks for stopping by

    would love to meet u in person some day


    just fyi folks – since the Dear Patti blog entries are listed in DR but my comments are still awaiting moderation – ive made another entry to THIS people of the eye routing folks to my replies and the main point – why NOT add audism to the guidelines?



  30. pdurr
    Oct 20, 2009 @ 04:19:54

    my latest comment in the Y3 blog in response to tayler saying his “highly reliable source” from the Bay area told him some folks in the Bay area were staging a protest of the selection of the 10th president of gallaudet

    is this the same source that said half the audience at the Rochester Deafhood workshop walked out? Which is a total falsehood 175 people did not walk out – i was there and on the committee

    so now we see other rumors, myths and falsehoods being spread




    note – it might be the same source that told him that Hard of Hearing has been removed from the CAD bylaws – “we know for a fact” which was a total FALSEHOOD again as it appears 11 times



  31. moi
    Oct 20, 2009 @ 07:01:46

    I see your point about having DeafRead in the URL. Since you feel so strongly, yeah, moving the blog is the only solution that I can see. You’re right, my blog was never hosted on the DeafRead servers.
    There IS a quick and easy way to port all entries. I’d have to muck around in the control panel area to find it and point you to where it is. Look for “import” or use WordPress’ help function to find it. Maybe someone in Rochester can help? If not, drop me a line and I can try. 🙂

  32. MM
    Oct 20, 2009 @ 08:41:35

    I’ve never seen the point of Audism so cannot see the point, of DR issuing guidelines on it. What everyone describes is discrimination, and the definition of that seems pretty well clear at DR. Discrimination is not lesser because it isn’t called Audism first… sorry we don’t suffer worse discrimination than many others do for their respective stances and lifestyles… I refer all readers here to the dictionary/spell checkers we all use, audism isn’t there…… so you ask DR to issue guidelines on some term that doesn’t official exist as yet ?

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: