Amen– I agree with that! Thanks again for stopping by.

Anon: try picking a different anonymous name. I’m not a real big fan of “Anonymous” or “Anon” because everyone uses that. “Mr. Sandman,” “moi,” “deafk”– these are good examples of fake names that are used consistently and are accepted in the community. You’re obviously an intelligent person, so maybe come up with something different? Now, as to your comment: I agree, there’s nothing wrong with being a whistle-blower, but posting actual screen names and other contact information was totally inappropriate and unethical. Threatening to send letters to dozens of officials about an organization that the participants support in their spare time is also not cool. So while I agree that we need whistle-blowers in our society, I don’t consider Barry Sewell a good example of a “whistle-blower.”

Exactly– that was my *whole* point: the Fremont Deaf Community is “composed of good-hearted and well-intentioned folks.” The intentional broad tarring was not acceptable; who are these “bullies”? Why was the label applied? Could we make our point clearer without resorting to such insensitive labels?

As for the whole frenzy over COI, I haven’t said much, because I was pretty much AWOL from the blogosphere during that time. I merely included it here as historical background. I haven’t read the blog in question, so it would be unfair for me to say anything analytical about what happened. Regardless, it was controversial, and thus a benchmark in how the community views and relates to Deaf Read.

From what I *have* read and been told, people feel a lot of the CI blogs/bloggers have their own “covert bias”; it seems to be something both sides accuse each other of. This is part of the larger overarching struggle between manualism and oralism, and the role technology has played in our community history. Sad to say, I don’t think that battle is going to be resolved in any way anytime soon.

You say, “…it’s obvious who DR chose to listen to.”

That was my whole point in my blogs the last couple of days. Whether the bias is perceived or real, Deaf Read cannot be considered neutral. However, it is, at heart, just an aggregator. The bias or perception thereof is not just from Deaf Read, it’s also from the readers, bloggers, and participants. Thus my feeling we all share some responsibility here.

I disagree about Deaf Village: DonG’s site may be listed, but it is by and large composed of supporters of cochlear implants and people with oralist-leaning tendencies. On Deaf Read, there are still a number of pro-CI blogs, but the majority are signers and pro-manualists. In their own ways, both aggregators are “echo chambers” of a sort. I think we may have to agree to disagree on that. I DO agree with you that there is nothing wrong with having more than one aggregator, but the division caused by splitting off means that the opportunity we had to create a larger community of one has to be deferred yet again.

Your second to last paragraph says it all, and I’m in agreement with you. Self-control by readers is just as important as anything.

Yep, no one banned Ridor, but a lot of people, including me, chastised him for his behavior. This is what the community needs to do– self-policing. We can’t rely on one person to do it all. Do your employees at Nor Cal say, “Oh Sheri’s in charge of everything, we’ll just let her take care of it all”? No. If they did that, and you stumbled for whatever reason, would you want them pointing fingers at you? No.

When someone makes a motion at the NAD or CAD convention, and their idea or project is approved, does everyone just expect that one person to do it? No– a committee is appointed, and people within the membership are encouraged to participate and support whatever is going on.

I *do* agree with you on one thing: we all need to examine *WHY* this happened. Otherwise people will just forget what happened, and it’ll happen all over again a few weeks, months, or years from now.

You say, “Beyond all of this, I challenge you to really find out WHY people are afraid, why people unleashed this anger, why people want a new group or new organization.”

I don’t know who you’re speaking to, because I don’t see an “Adam” here. But why does the challenge have to be on *one* person? Why not on all of us? I’m still unclear as to why people want a new group/organization; what will that accomplish?

One thing I totally agree with you on is your final comment:

“Are we really clear with our messages when we talk about Deaf Culture, Deafhood, Deaf Education?”

I don’t think we are, and that has to be our next step.

I haven’t read very many of Ben Vess’ posts, so I can’t say I agree with you that his apologies are insincere. It’s possible he’s not good at learning from his mistakes. He’s young, so I’m cutting him a little slack. At the same time, he *is* an adult and needs to take responsibility for his words and actions. I’m sure you and others will read and watch his words and comments and speak up when necessary.

I agree with you that individual bloggers have responsibilities to their readers through moderating comments, and speaking up when commenters cross the line. Those who stay silent are as guilty of the offense as the person who committed it.

I understand your feelings about Deaf Read, but I’m also glad you’re willing to wait and see what happens over the next few days. Tayler has written a blog over at Deaf Read, and even though the commenting system is not what it should be, I think he’s genuinely trying to reach out and have a dialogue. We need to have this conversation with him. Otherwise, it’s our fault as well.

I don’t think I’m “too one sided.” I have my own bias, and I’m sure it shows to some degree. But I’m more or less a fairly moderate person, both in my blogs (except when it comes to national politics, I’ll admit) and in person. I believe in fair play, and I think my writing shows that.

I do agree with your sentiment that “if you don’t like them, then don’t read them.” This is something I think people have forgotten at times; as you point out, Deaf Read has actually been pretty proactive about that by installing the option for readers to hide blogs they don’t want to see. In effect, Deaf Read is keeping the overall site open to all, but helping individuals who want to be selective.

I don’t think DonG’s blog about Barry Sewell was so much a witch hunt as it was an investigation. A lot of us don’t know who Sewell is, and Don’s digging was somewhat revealing. I do think some of his phrases revealed a bias on Don’s part, but given Sewell’s behavior, it’s rather understandable.

I agree there are people on both sides of the fence that need to reform. Luckily, there’s just a handful of them compared with the rest of us. However, their behavior is making a lot of people uncomfortable.

This last line of yours… Hmmm. “…but you are not winning any favors from me.” I don’t recall ever trying to suck up to anyone. Everyone who’s ever stopped by here knows if I see something I feel is wrong, I’ll call them on it. Ask Brian Riley. Ask Ridor. Even Tayler knows that despite the fact that we’re friends, if I think he’s not doing something right, I’ll speak up. So I don’t feel a need to “earn” any favors from you. You’re free to agree or disagree with me, and I reserve the right to do the same. All I ask for is respect for me, and I’ll give respect in return.

Thanks for stopping by. It’s always good to hear different perspectives.

John Egbert, DBC is your “baby,” just as Deaf Read is Tayler’s. It’s only natural to protect your creation. I hope you will be able to work with the community to ensure DBC is successful in its mission of promoting bilingualism.

Shelley, good to see you here. Would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Deafk, thanks.

To the other commenters: your responses are longer, and will require a bit more thought, so I’ll address you each in turn.