DeafRead, the Deaf Blogosphere, and Ethics
“Witch hunt” is the term I’m hearing more and more over the last couple of days. At first, I discounted that– but the last few hours that I’ve spent catching up on DeafRead and the deaf blogosphere, the more convinced I am that certain people who have axes to grind have inflicted their grievances on an entire community for no really good reason.
At this point, it’s not just about DBC or Deafhood anymore: it’s about some central, core issues. The first is communication. The second is community. The third is ethics.
The first is communication. For that, I want to start by referring you to Deaf Cinematic Blog, where Aidan Mack discusses Ella Lentz. Now, what struck me was not her commentary on Ella, but on Aidan’s use of the sign “respect.” She uses both hands, and signs in reference to opposing sides. Her point? Mutual respect is a necessary foundation. I agree with Aidan; in any kind of relationship, mutual respect must exist for the relationship to flourish. Right now, I’m not seeing certain parties practicing that.
Communication is at the heart of any forum, whether it’s a convention such as NAD, a rap session in a college dorm, a conversation at a party, a board meeting, or a group of bloggers engaging in online dialogue. For most such forums, there are unspoken rules central to whatever communication takes place. Respect is one of these rules. When respect is absent, communication breaks down. Right now, the communication in the deaf blogosphere is breaking down in certain areas, on certain blogs and vlogs.
Good communication is when people can feel safe to discuss various topics, try out new ideas, and be able to agree to disagree, yet leave whatever conversation they’ve had and feel they’ve given and received respect.
Bad communication is when the opposite happens: people are afraid to speak out, people are afraid to be themselves. That’s when a handful of bullies have “won.”
Most of us have experienced both kinds of situations, and I’d venture to guess that for 85-90% of us, we’ll take good communication anytime over bad.
Let’s set aside communication for a minute. Community is important too. Community is analogous to “society,” and in any society, there are diverse peoples with individual opinions, beliefs, and practices. Not all are the same, nor should they be. Our deaf world (and I’m intentionally using small “d” here, yes) is a smaller society within a larger hearing society. No matter our background, our education, our current life situations, we all have one thing in common: we don’t hear, whether it’s a mild or profound loss. That commonality binds us together more than it divides us, because even the most “successful” among us (and how do we measure “success,” anyway?) has experienced discrimination, no matter how subtle. To borrow a cliché, we are all children of a lesser god. What we had before, in DeafRead’s early days, was a community that worked. Oh, it wasn’t perfect, to be sure, but it was still a place where we could all see what the other had to say. It replicated the forums of old: the campus dorms, VAX Notes, the clubs, the summer camps, the local and state conventions. It also added new dimensions: a population that didn’t use signs joined us, and even though it was an uneasy co-existence, some of us ventured to the other side to see differing perspectives. In the process, some of us were able to develop a new understanding and a new respect, even if we still ultimately stayed on our own side of the fence.
Let’s also set aside community. Last on my list today is ethics. Ethics is at the heart of this current firestorm. The cracks first formed when the DeafRead team tossed a pro-cochlear implant blog for violating DeafRead rules. Rather than take the opportunity to step back and examine what had happened, an entire segment of our community halted the communication that should have been taking place, and instead retaliated. They broke off and formed their own community, Deaf Village. Instead of one large city, we ended up with two villages. Whether you agree DeafRead was justified or not, it centered around the rules, or ethics, that held us in place.
No sooner did this happen than another conflict erupted. In the wake of the Deaf Bilingual Coalition’s meeting in Milwaukee, a number of former DBC members spoke up about concerns they had. One of them, unfortunately, went far beyond merely sharing their own stories and thoughts. That ex-member, Barry Sewell, posted an entire IM conversation with actual screenames, highlighted certain comments, then sat back with a bag of popcorn. Sewell later followed up by threatening to send letters to the workplaces of two DBC members, then just as abruptly took down much of the material on his website.
The initial fracture at DeafRead widened as more and more people, in the heat of passion, spoke up. A number of them made highly emotional arguments, while other, cooler heads used logic. But in the midst of the fray, an ugly thing happened.
Supposedly “mature” adults made snide comments, posted inflammatory remarks and blog/vlog entries, hurled insults, and generally behaved like five year olds. An example of an extremely snide, insensitive comment that did absolutely nothing to add to the dialogue was posted on Der Sankt Speaks:
Jenny ..
I apologize: your words looked and sounded like English, but they did not make sense, especially with the contradiction Ben pointed out.
Aww, I am sorry - I forgot your “native tongue” is busy eating your contradictions.
Want a napkin? You appear to be drooling ..
:o)
The author of this inappropriate remark was a thirty-something year old man who calls himself “Paotie”; funny, I could have sworn most people in their 30’s had more sensitivity and maturity than that. It’s something you might expect from a surly, immature teenager, not a grown man, highly educated, and supposedly in his prime.
Speaking of Der Sankt Speaks, its owner, Ben Vess, posted a highly inappropriate ad hominem attack against Ella Lentz. The posting made it past the DeafRead editors and was on DeafRead for quite some time. This vlog post was the final straw for many people, including Patti Durr and Joey Baer, both of whom announced they were leaving DeafRead. I’ll discuss this more in a moment, because this is a pivotal moment, and deserves its own examination.
To his credit, Vess realized he’d made an error, and is at the moment doing some much needed self-examination. Quite a few community members have commented, trying to bring a peace pipe to the aftermath of Vess’ regrettable action. However, even in the middle of this attempted healing, someone took a large brush and tarred the California School for the Deaf as “the Fremont bullies.” Boy, I’m sure everyone there is surprised, from Dr. Hank Klopping down to the custodians. Regardless of who they are, where they came from, what they believe, each of them, from such diverse personages as Patty Albee to David Eberwein, are now slandered as “The Fremont Bullies.”
These are the real bullies– the people who don’t really want to practice respect, who don’t really want to participate in a community, who don’t really want to uphold ethics. They’d rather do hit-and-runs, flaming indiscriminately without a thought as to who they hurt, and certainly without any real purpose other than to be as inflammatory as possible.
In a perfect world, we would shun them. But unfortunately, some of us in our community supposedly admire these people, encouraging them by telling them they speak “truth.”
Quite a few of us have shared our outrage at these individuals, and at the breakdown of what was formerly a thriving community. There are quite a few who spoke up, but I think Saunière says it best:
…I will say something to the people who started this whole thing against DBC and who are fanning the flames: Congratulations. You’re damaging DBC, the Deaf community, the Deaf Blogosphere, and DeafRead.
Now, back to DeafRead. A number of people are leaving or considering leaving DeafRead. A smaller number of these people are even considering setting up a third aggregator. My feeling is, “bad move.” Don Grushkin at Deafhood Discourses posted a vlog that pretty much summed this all up. I agree with him, although I think he could’ve saved the shirt he was wearing for another day and another message.
My thoughts? Patti, Joey, and others: you’ll be contributing to the destruction of what we have now if you leave. Rather than abandon DeafRead, the opposite should be happening. We need to support DeafRead, and the best way to do that is to help DeafRead reform from within. Tayler Mayer started something wonderful, but along the way, several serious stumbles occurred.
Here’s what needs to happen, and here’s what we need to consider.
1) Despite the DeafRead team’s admirable efforts to provide a neutral ground, that’s not ever going to be possible. I discussed this whole mess earlier today with a colleague at work. My colleague reminded me that nothing is ever neutral. Everyone brings some sort of bias to the table from the start. The Deaf Village folks left because of their bias. The rest of us stayed because of our biases. Some people actively avoid DeafRead because of their own biases.
Just as MSCHE told Gallaudet’s administration that Gallaudet could not “be everything to everyone,” so DeafRead cannot possibly be “everything to everyone.” DeafRead was never a place where we could all meet as just deaf people: DeafRead was established for the signing community, even if its founders never consciously admitted that. What its founders did do that was admirable was welcome anyone, regardless of who they were, to participate. I think that is a goal that we should still hold out as an ideal. Just because it doesn’t work now doesn’t mean it can’t eventually become that. The Deaf Village people proved they were not capable of that ideal by splitting off; they would prefer, for the time being, to build their own echo chamber. But that doesn’t mean those of us who are left should do the same, because if that happens, we all lose. We all go back to our little kingdoms, we all huddle in our own corners with only people who think the same as we do. Groupthink isn’t healthy, people. My advice is don’t do it.
2) DeafRead is going to have to revisit its rules and establish ethics. For that matter, we all are going to have to do the same. Unwritten rules don’t seem to be working, so maybe we need to decide what does work. Allowing personal attacks and ad hominem arguments such as Ben Vess’ outburst about Ella Lentz is unacceptable. But this isn’t the first time there’s been inconsistency at DeafRead. The DeafRead conference in February, as Joey Baer pointed out, presented an opportunity for people to bring up this issue, and to start to discuss how to institute better safeguards. I don’t think we can wait for another conference to remedy the situation. This doesn’t mean that it’s time to turn on Tayler, Jared, and the rest of the team. It does mean we need to ask them, POLITELY, how we can all work together.
3) DeafRead has obligations to its participants and the community, but we also have obligations to each other. Those of us who have condemned the events of the last few days are going to have to help police the community. By this, I don’t mean censorship, or muzzling anyone we don’t agree with. It does mean we need to speak out anytime anyone gets out of line. Only by acting together to censure inappropriate comments and actions can we aid the entire community, not just DeafRead. However, if people continue to be “afraid to post,” “afraid to comment,” or willing to leave completely, then they’ve allowed a few bad apples to “win.” The solution isn’t to hide or flee, but to speak up, to be willing to do some hard work, to push back when needed.
There’s more I’d like to add, and I haven’t even scratched the surface on other controversies or aspects of events, but I’m going to pause for now. If you’re interested in reading and watching some thoughtful comments about what’s happening, go over to You Are You & Your Circumstances, where *ist has made a few good points. It’s worth checking out.
I do want to leave you all with this final thought, though.
When you blog, when you vlog, who is your audience? My suggestion is each time you sit down to write or sign, think about what you’re saying. Is it the kind of conversation or comment you’d make to your mother? If so, go right ahead. If it isn’t, then it probably isn’t something you want to post. When I rant and rave about politics, when I discuss issues, these are exactly the kinds of conversations I have and have had with my mother. I have used bad language with my mother; she’s okay with that (especially when we discuss our current gummint). I do not attack my mother with insults, I do not conduct ad hominem arguments with her about her or other family members. I do not call my mother names.
Blogs and vlogs are NOT private, people. Even though my hearing readers and people who stumble on this blog don’t know who I am, most of you in the deaf community know exactly who’s typing this right now. It’s an open secret, and I’m okay with that. However, over the years, I’ve discovered that a couple of relatives have found this site. One or two even comment from time to time. Of course, that means I’m never going to reveal the skeletons in my closet, or in my family’s closet. But it does mean that I have to think when I blog about topics: is this something my mother would be okay with?
You don’t have to use your mother as your barometer. You can use someone you admire, or someone you’re close to. But each time you write, each time you have the urge to say something, stop and think: is this something that person would approve of? If the answer is “No,” then turn off the camera. Stop typing.
Because at its heart, ethics is about your good name, about the community’s good name. Once your reputation is ruined, it’s hard to clean up.
Sandman,
An EXCELLENT, thoughtful blog! I’m not exactly sure you are yet, but you are someone I would enjoy meeting someday, if we haven’t already…
–DonG.
Mr. Sandman,
Thank you for your thoughtful blog and I admire you!
Every problem got a solution, but there are many solution to a problem. But it is the matter of which is the best solution to have the positive ramification to solve the problem.
I admit that I rush to solve the problem and your blog was helpful about how I should view myself and my goals helping deaf babies.
John Egbert
You made a powerful case for people to stay on DeafRead.
I will think further upon your message.
Have a good day.
Shel
Good morning,
I was forwarded your link by someone and it was
I still believe that DeafRead is partially responsible. If b/vloggers kept on telling each other that we must raise our bars by doing better jobs, why can’t DeafRead raise their own bars as well? It is time for DeafRead to set higher expectations from Deaf v/bloggers to do better job in order to reach on their front page. If they really care about Deaf community, they would do it instantly and they haven’t.
Other than that, thank you for sharing your thoughts by outlining specific excellent examples on how people were pushed off DeafRead.
I simply closed my door but I didn’t lock it. I have other things to do that is more important than DeafRead at this moment but I will keep my eyes open (I have always done that).
All the best!
oops - I didnt finish the first sentence…
I was forwarded your link by someone and thanks for thinking this all through and share with us.
I’m glad I cant be targeted in the Deafread witch hunt because I been banned from their sites since last May.
Getting banned in the first place served as a blessing in disguise.
Interesting thing is the hearing population think of it as an insult toward deaf people that can communicate w/o ASL, as in talking and reading lips, and are turning their backs on ASL.
Richard
Pretty good post… But I have to direct you to see the other side too.
I have to be honest with you and say that you are too one sided. DeafRead is for everyone and everyone has their opinions and their ideas - who are we to judge them? The basic rule is, if you don’t like them, then don’t read them. DR has a link to hide blogsites, you can hide all the v/blog site that you deem “unsafe” and have a “safe” site. We are big boys and girls. We can make decisions and obviously, the people who didn’t want to read “bad” stuff, read them anyway. So, who really is to blame?
And I have to stay something else. You might disagree or whatever. The witch-hunt naming doesn’t work. Take DonG’s blog about Barry - now that was a witch hunt! No evidences and a lot of hot air. That is the exact same thing John Egbert tried to do with Paotie. So, you need to be more fair and see both sides of the equation.
But then this is your site and you can say anything you want, but you are not winning any favors from me.
Hi, Mr Sandman,
Thanks for sharing your view with us. It is a nice fresh perspective that we all need for DeafRead…
Thanks again. deafk
Mr. Sandman, I enjoy your entry. I support that people voice out “truths” either in agreement or disagreement as long as they are expressed in respectful approach. Personal flaming remarks are not very well received by me.
Granted, Ben Vess is not the only one. The others have contributed a lot to this fiasco. Some commenters have said that they tend to disagree with respect and without resorting to personal flames, and while it is true, they did “endorse” their peer’s personal flaming by saying that they are speaking up, and such. Or, some of them might say nothing. In that essence, they are also contributing to this problem. Thus, they are not exempted. At least, that is my opinion.
I appreciate your credit to Ben Vess’ regrettable action. I regret to say, but this one does not deserve a credit from me. It is not his first time; in fact, it happened so many times and he always claimed that he always “owned” to all what he said and did. I do not agree, because you can’t always apologize but do the same thing again, and then apologize for it, again and again. The apology needs to stay true. Granted, he is human and is permitted to make mistakes. It is just that his recent posts have gone too far, and it is too late to take back what were already said. FINISHED.
Lastly, the DeafRead just lost my respect and support. It cannot bend around with its guideline out of fear of what the “bullies” would do and say. For example, the DeafRead said in email that “the people” might accuse the DeafRead of censorship, or they might find other ways to get nasty posts across to us. While that might be true, those are poor excuses for bending around with the guideline. I have given the DeafRead many, many, many chances. The DeafRead’s recent poor judgmental calls and excuses are the last straws.
The course of my action? I will just wait and see what happens within next several days.
Adam, you surprise me. The practice of witchhunting has been happening for a long time now. No one did anything. No one banned Ridor when he practiced unethical posts. People kept complaining to DeafRead to do something then, and they refused. Today I am feeling really disgusted with alot of this stuff. The anger, and the backlash has been festering for a long time now, ever since the protests - people obviously still have not healed. You have totally discounted the scars left on many, so its no surprise. A LOT of people contributed to this week’s fiasco. To continue to discount “why” this really happened and figure out “how to” bring us together is perpetuating the fire, now back on “simmer”, but the fire is not out.
The only thing I agree with is that the witchhunting has to stop. It was disgusting to see names of people thrown around carelessly. No one deserved it. I see apologies offered by some people, not all.
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.
My assessment of this whole thing? There are a great many Deaf people, especially Deaf with CI, who do not feel ACCEPTED.
Are we really clear with our messages when we talk about Deaf Culture, Deafhood, Deaf Education?
Hi Sandman, it’s me, Curious Eyes aka Patty Albee. Seeing my name, David Eberwein’s, and “Fremont Bullies” all in the same sentence was a bit of a shock!
Of course, I didn’t take it personally, and I know the Fremont Deaf Community is composed of good-hearted and well-intentioned folks.
Whether or not Cochlear Implant Online (COI) violated DeafRead rules is still open for debate. I don’t think they did, and still feel that DeafRead was showing their covert bias against COI which espouses CIs and AVT without any ASL. “[Learning ASL is] just not necessary” was the straw that broke that camel’s back. Even though other DR bloggers and human editors also seemed to have some financial conflicts of interest of their own, it’s obvious who DR chose to listen to. Just saying. The irony is that DV’s contributor list has grown exponentially to comprise a diverse range of v/blogs, and is definitely not an “echo chamber.” Even DrDonG’s vlog is on it. And what’s wrong with having more than one aggregate, may I ask? I visit both DV and DR and enjoy them both.
I think the anger directed at DeafRead is misdirected and unwarranted. Instead of forcing DeafRead to make decisions about who should or should not be listed, we readers should simply exercise our powers of choice by not reading those blogs one finds personally offensive. If you don’t like what you’re reading, leave. Even better, if you believe that v/blogger to be in the wrong, take the time to engage in productive dialogue and discourse rather than insults and slander. Persuade with the merits of your argument, rather than name-calling.
I like your rule of thumb about whether you would say something to your mother. I always ask myself if I would say something to that person’s face. It’s good to self-moderate. I hope I don’t need someone else to tell me when I’m being inappropriate.
I have NOTHING against DeafRead. In fact, it has opened up a bigger world for me… got to meet some people online, which I am thankful for.
DeafRead has SUCCEEDED in bringing the deaf diversity to us. The challenge, however to me, is UNITY. In order to reach unity, we have to know and accept diversity… that is where the clashes come in. I admit to writing some comments that show my displeasure/impatience, whateva. But I try to listen with my eyes open (as wide as my eye are able to open :o) ) We all have our own definitions, sooo….
Like you, I enjoy both DeafRead and DeafVillage. I do wince at name-calling and I don’t like it when people try to mudsludge me just because of my “association” with Mike M., Paotie, Candy, etc., all because I enjoy their postings. *shrug*
good post, but as i mentioned in Don’s blog, this society is full of whistleblowers and they often get crucified for doing the right thing, only to find out later that what they did was right. The I see it, the situation with DBC had a whistleblower and he only backed it up with evidence as it had to be done, otherwise, the whistleblower would not be beleived. Additionally, I wouldnt go so far to say that the whistleblower is the one sending all the letters to the school because if he actually did, he would have posted them on the website instead of saying “waiting for the letters” meaning they were being written by someone else, who? you guess is as good as mine, but I am not going to try to name names without knowing facts.
anon, so barry does expect to get copies of these letters? That means barry already has a relationship with this person? Is it mike mc or rr??
passingthru, as I said I have no idea, why dont you ask him?
Don, thanks! We met once, several years ago. Perhaps we will have the opportunity again.
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.
Brian,
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.
Hello again, Brenster! I always enjoy hearing from you.
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.
Hello, Sheri… Adam? *looking around* Who’s Adam? I don’t see an Adam here…
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.
Hey there, CE/aka Patty. You’ve been quiet on quite a few forums for some time…
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.
Karen, you said: “I have NOTHING against DeafRead. In fact, it has opened up a bigger world for me… got to meet some people online, which I am thankful for.”
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.”
Joey, I started to respond to you, but I think I’m going to make it my next post. Thank you so much for commenting. You always have something to say, and it helps raise the level of the conversation, both in the comments and on blogs/vlogs themselves.