I have been reading all of this with amusement. This really sounds like you have a personal vendetta.

“I am still waiting for DBC’s leader to acknowledge the mistake they made with me and I am still waiting for their apology.”

I am not,as a hearing lawyer,repeat NOT taking sides in this. It just that as I recalled from your battles with other bloggers (i.e. the blues, and others) they said pretty much the same things. Now you have finally admitted the same things.

Just to repeat- I am a hearing lawyer who has not taken sides on this issue.

For the past few days I’ve been receiving emails from DBC Core members begging me to stop doing what I’ve been doing in these blogs and vlogs. They asked me to return back to DBC once I stop. Too little and too late for that. In matter of days I will publish these emails as well for everybody to see core members’ knack for intimidation tactics. I am still waiting for DBC’s leader to acknowledge the mistake they made with me and I am still waiting for their apology. Like I said earlier I know it probably won’t come but they can’t say I did not give them the opportunity.

So that means you won’t publish the web site for the public to see your “evidence”? . Please clearify- I am confuse.

I would be glad to attend given in this approach. It does not have to go through delegates’ votes? Or correct me.

I am not dismissing the concept at all, it is just that term Deafhood is unconventional. For example, for school currirulum, it is really still called “Deaf Studies”. Deafhood would be one expansion in that whole picture in regard of o-n-e social theoretical framework. If for an entire semester or a course, it makes more sense to call it a seminar: Deafhood.

For workshop in general, it comes from an open one on weekends or evenings to more specifically designed to cater different needs within of different setting and time like what I mean for NAD Board and staff workers.

The point, many of us do not see it as something like a huge congregation in our town. I have been slowly defining my standpoint, I am asking please respect my and many of our same view.

It was held at ISD and around 200 attended. It was a good workshop, upbeat and enpowering. However, it did point at hearing people for being responsible for colonization, talked about Milan Convention where the law about oral method was passed, holding AGBell as the problem for the 100+ years of deaf people being oppressed. I noticed that the speakers talked about the select group of educated deaf people in Europe… did not talk about the histories of deaf Asians, deaf Middle easterns, deaf Native Americans, etc… we don’t know about them… the problem with history is how it is passed down… written vs oral.

After the workshops, we did not talk much about Deafhood since then… we were just busy living our lives.

Never until now did I know about the existence of Deafhood Foundation as well as about its workshops. I have not heard about it down here in Washington, D.C. Could you elaborate or summarise on a Deafhood workshop that you were attending. Was it held at Indiana School or at a deaf club?

It is vague…and not everyone agrees with it, even amongst the Deaf people.

Just keep it separate.

Now, the proposal of Deafhood training for NAD’s officiers… hmmmm…the trainers would need to leave out the blameshifting, CI, etc. (CI is seen as one of colonization’s devices by hearing people.) I don’t know what percentage of NAD members is hearing, but Deafhood needs to revisit its agenda and change it to more positive advocacy, no blaming, focusing more on personal journey. Group journey? It is kind of vague to me now.