Originally Posted by EnglishJW (Post 1370511)

You only participate in this group for this single topic?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1370634)

I so agree with this post, but I also wish that there wasn't a subset of "deafies" (if that is the PC term) that weren't militant crusaders and more open to compromise and less open to legal action. The only winners tend to be the lawyers.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1370635)

OMG, did I read that right? Please, someone quick get a thermometer down to Hades and see if it is below 32:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863 (Post 1370627)

I have been profoundly deaf since birth so I can speak with credibility.

This is one misconception most common ...all deafies are the same which is most certainly not true at all.

Some can speak, some cannot. Some can lip-read, some cannot. Some are educated, some are not. Some can benefit from hearing aids or cochlear implants, some cannot. Some are nice, some are not. Some have excellent coping skills, some do not. We come in all kinds, shapes, forms, and degrees just as you do.

Because I had interpreting services, I was able to obtain a paralegal certificate with all As and was a tax producer for years until I retired. Better this than be a tax consumer, uh?

I myself do not need an interpreter when I have routine medical appointments because I know what to expect. However if I have a medical situation with which I am totally unfamiliar, then I do need interpreting services so there won't be any misunderstandings. Medical service personnel appreciate this because they certainly do not want to be sued if something goes wrong.

I can hardly wait for the day when technology has improved to the point that we won't need to be so dependent on interpreting services anymore. But until then, we are crippled by this need.

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863 (Post 1370643)

Yes because the misconceptions about the deaf posted here have me deeply concerned. I have been profoundly deaf since birth and cannot stand in the wings while others rant. attack, and vilify the deaf.

If it is any consolation to you, I myself would not have requested interpreting services for "fun" situations. However, the law (ADA) is the law, and we cannot discriminate against any disabled person by saying sorry, this is not something you need and therefore we won't provide services to you.

I do agree though that it is one of the most abused laws in this country.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1370636)

Go ahead and take the time to read all of the posts and consider it a...Lifelong Learning Experience. :D

Originally Posted by BK001 (Post 1371081)

LOL LOL LOL -
Just when I was missing French 101 or Knitting 202 or Painting with Water Colors -- you came to my rescue! Great idea. I will get started immediately ... tomorrow ... or next week ... or

For now I'll just take a nap!

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1328304)

I am so angry about this. Someone wanted to show their superior Washington lobbying skills is MY opinion. Are you happy now????

P.S. I am legally deaf in one ear and have a handicapped child but see NOTHING meritorious in this action.

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863 (Post 1371288)

Some of the deaf plaintiffs are legally deaf in one year and could not hear out of the other one.

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863 (Post 1371288)

Some of the deaf plaintiffs are legally deaf in one year and could not hear out of the other one.

Originally Posted by tv2016 (Post 1371305)

If meant to be funny... not.

Originally Posted by EnglishJW (Post 1370862)

What are the "interpreting services" that are the most useful? Are you generally talking about sign language? Would it be possible to have someone type - maybe with a large screen or monitor - what is being said? If this could work there would be a simple technology required and, I assume, a number of people who possess the requisite skills to translate in this manner.

Originally Posted by CFrance (Post 1372052)

English, this is actually being done. The people who do this are highly skilled and type by phonetics rather than alphabet. It's an arduous process to be certified as a court recorder, and many of these people move on to "real-time" captioning, such as is seen on television news and other live broadcasts, because they can work from home via satellite feed. An accuracy rate of 85% was considered good in the midwest. The company I worked for provided this service for many of the colleges in Michigan, but of course not from home.

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863 (Post 1372065)

The problem with this is that it is not an interactive program. The deaf students want the right to interact with the other students and to ask questions.

So what they want are certified sign language interpreters who sign what the hearies say and speak what the deafies say. This takes an enormous amount of training, and they need to be certified in order to be reasonably compensated - and most importantly, to be trusted. We want to be sure they interpret accurately. We would not want an interpreter to misinterpret that Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 1620 or that TV was started in 1850, would we?