[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by EnglishJW

You only participate in this group for this single topic?

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.

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

Amen. There are more and more judges who throw out frivolous disability rights lawsuits.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

I warned you to be sitting down.

[DeanFL]

Must say, I tend to really get irked when a very small minority get preferential treatment over the vast majority. Of course there ARE cases when the minority MUST have a voice and be protected. But common sense and the common good should come into play - more often than high-priced lawyers and courts and special interests with deep pockets. Sometimes our system seems out of control.

This topic, in my opinion, is one of the cases. When one side seems to be not willing to negotiate and simply acting for financial and/or publicity.

[EnglishJW]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

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.

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.

[EnglishJW]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

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.

Are you more broadly aware of The Villages and some of the clubs and support groups here? I am thinking specifically of the Deaf and Hard-Of-Hearing Social Times Group and Hearing Loss Association of America. Given the very active level of volunteerism here in TV it continues to astound me that a better solution couldn't have been worked out regarding the Lifelong Learning College.

[BK001]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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

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!

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by BK001

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!

Naps are kewl.

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.

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

[tv2016]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

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

If meant to be funny... not.

[EnglishJW]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

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

Since you don't live in The Villages and aren't a snowbird, how is it that you know the specific issues with each of the plaintiffs?

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by tv2016

If meant to be funny... not.

No it is not meant funny but those who are deaf in one ear cannot be compared to those who are deaf in both ears. This would be like a person who is blind in one eye comparing self to a totally blind person.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by EnglishJW

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.

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.

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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.

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?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

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?

I was just explaining to English that what he was proposing was already available, and stating what was being provided to deaf students in Michigan state universities at least a decade ago during lecture classes. It could be different now.