Sign Language Ban on Bus?

Matthew Best said:
Truethat is right. (Never thought I'd write that sentence down.)

This happened in 2001. Here's a story from 2007 http://www.deafweekly.com/backissues/121907.htm
that states:

STUDENT REFILES LAWSUIT AFTER SIGNING BAN

A deaf New Jersey student who was banned from using sign language on a school bus in 2001 has refiled a lawsuit against Brfanchburg Stony Brook school board and officials. Danica Lesko, who turned 18 in January, has been waiting for justice for seven years, her father, John Lesko, told The Star-Ledger. Danica’s parents contend the ban “set off a chain of events that emotionally traumatized” their daughter and brought in a traumatist who found the youth “mistrustful and defensive.” Said John Lesko: “All we want is to get in front of an impartial jury and be heard.”
Click to expand...


Thanks (I think) But this conversation is yet another example of what I mean about people not actually reading the information written but simply reacting to headlines. And NO FWM I didn't just read one article, I don't ever read "one" article because that article is usually a sensationalized version of the story, especially when the headline is written as such.

You see it as well with the "POPTART" story, someone wrote a headline saying the kid was suspended for biting the poptart into the shape of a gun.

Then of course the peanut gallery rolls out with the drama and ballyhooing and whatnot.

But if you actually read the article the kid wasn't suspended for that, he was suspended for then taking the poptart and holding it like a gun and "shooting" at his classmates.

There's a zero tolerance policy for that sort of thing. He could have done it with just his fingers and he would have been suspended.

But of course no one is actually interested in the facts of the story.

There are many cases where I've been "right' and people just want to play pile on and attack the person who is interested in discussing the facts not the emotional manipulation of the facts.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Apparently not. I stand corrected. The article I read had a ##-##-01 date but at the bottom of the page said it was updated May ## 2013.

How the hell did the story get bumped on so many sites this week?
Click to expand...


Because of reactionary posters that start threads like this that then have tons of people weighing in on the story without actually reading the article.

I remember reading somewhere that when an article ends the title with a question mark it usually isn't true.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
Annoyingly, the article isn't dated - at least not with a year, which would be useful when trying to figure out what year it happened.
Click to expand...

If you read the article the information is IN the article and if you research it further it's quite easy to find.

But yes I agree with you that they should have properly documented the article.
 
truethat said:
Because of reactionary posters that start threads like this that then have tons of people weighing in on the story without actually reading the article.

I remember reading somewhere that when an article ends the title with a question mark it usually isn't true.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll ask the obvious question.

How does this story being old mean it does not merit discussion or that the information isn't accurate? What about it 'isn't true'?
 
truethat said:
Because of reactionary posters that start threads like this that then have tons of people weighing in on the story without actually reading the article.

I remember reading somewhere that when an article ends the title with a question mark it usually isn't true.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you meant reactionary as "someone who reacts", but it has another meaning.

And I think it has more to do with, as Matthew mentioned, the fact that a number of the articles, including the one from ABC News in the OP, do not have a year on them, just a month and day.

More to the point a Google of Danica Lesko turns up this article first - with a picture in the Google results, written very recently and certainly giving the impression that it is a recent/current story (and with the ABC News undated article linked therein).

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/nj-girl-danica-lesko-no-longer-banned-using-sign-language-bus

And the ABC News article from the OP, which is linked therein:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93466&page=1#.UcfJDvk3Dst
 
I am a skeptic, I don't just read an article and accept what the headline or slant of the article says. I look into it. I thought that is what critical thinkers were supposed to do. Unless you can verify the information in the article it should be suspect. Missing a date should be a red flag. It took seconds to find the information in the article and to google it and read a bit and consider it objectively based on the facts.

So the question remains, why do people form such strong opinions on a topic they have barely investigated?

This is what I've been pointing out for a long time.
 
tyr_13 said:
Alright, I'll ask the obvious question.

How does this story being old mean it does not merit discussion or that the information isn't accurate? What about it 'isn't true'?
Click to expand...

What isn't true is that the story is about a girl being told she can't use sign language on the bus as a form of discrimination.

Logically speaking it would be illegal for the bus driver to do what the article suggested. Since the school has already gotten involved we know it's not a situation of a poorly trained employee not understanding the rules.

I'm hearing impaired myself and I don't think that the story makes any sense. I also teach special education law as part of my classes and this just doesn't jibe as being the "whole story" there must be more to the story and so I go look into it.

Far too often people don't have the interest in doing that. They decide they know what is happening and argue based on overly emotional sensationalized manipulation of the facts.


I can list a few recent ones that I've been saying "What you are arguing against is pointless because it doesn't match the facts in the case"

If you look at the facts you'll see there is more to the story so why in the world would you decide that the sensationalized headline is true?

What school would forbid a hearing impaired student from using sign language as their only method of communication without expecting a massive law suit? What school would go on the news and make a statement like that, obviously they have spoken to lawyers and if was happening the way the media reported it, they would have been shut down in making statements.

Another story I saw this happen with was a man who was attacked by a group of black neighbors. The headline ran

http://www.loop21.com/life/revenge-for-trayvon-martin-beating-mobile-alabama

White Man Beaten by Mob of Blacks in Alleged "Revenge for Trayvon"
Click to expand...

Now if you read the article the story makes it seem like this crazed group of black people attacked the man in a revenge beating.

In reality the man had been threatening their kids with knives because he wanted them to stop playing on the street. There was a long history of altercations with the man and he was a jerk.

After he threatened their kids with knives the families came back and kicked his butt. And as someone was walking away they muttered "That's revenge for Trayvon."

But revenge from Trayvon wasn't the motivation for the attack.

People will often ask me "How do you KNOW, you can't KNOW" and I don't understand why it is so hard to put together the facts in the case and come to a reasonable conclusion.
 
truethat said:
What isn't true is that the story is about a girl being told she can't use sign language on the bus as a form of discrimination.

Logically speaking it would be illegal for the bus driver to do what the article suggested. Since the school has already gotten involved we know it's not a situation of a poorly trained employee not understanding the rules.

I'm hearing impaired myself and I don't think that the story makes any sense. I also teach special education law as part of my classes and this just doesn't jibe as being the "whole story" there must be more to the story and so I go look into it.

Far too often people don't have the interest in doing that. They decide they know what is happening and argue based on overly emotional sensationalized manipulation of the facts.


I can list a few recent ones that I've been saying "What you are arguing against is pointless because it doesn't match the facts in the case"

If you look at the facts you'll see there is more to the story so why in the world would you decide that the sensationalized headline is true?

What school would forbid a hearing impaired student from using sign language as their only method of communication without expecting a massive law suit? What school would go on the news and make a statement like that, obviously they have spoken to lawyers and if was happening the way the media reported it, they would have been shut down in making statements.

Another story I saw this happen with was a man who was attacked by a group of black neighbors. The headline ran

http://www.loop21.com/life/revenge-for-trayvon-martin-beating-mobile-alabama



Now if you read the article the story makes it seem like this crazed group of black people attacked the man in a revenge beating.

In reality the man had been threatening their kids with knives because he wanted them to stop playing on the street. There was a long history of altercations with the man and he was a jerk.

After he threatened their kids with knives the families came back and kicked his butt. And as someone was walking away they muttered "That's revenge for Trayvon."

But revenge from Trayvon wasn't the motivation for the attack.

People will often ask me "How do you KNOW, you can't KNOW" and I don't understand why it is so hard to put together the facts in the case and come to a reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...

But you didn't supply any evidence that the school wasn't wrong. Did you find an update that the article headline was wrong? That the school denies it isn't what I'd call strong evidence.

I still don't know what happened and am skeptical that you do.
 
truethat said:
I don't know what happened but I do know what didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that you do. You have no evidence for it, and I find your lecturing that it couldn't have happened suspect.
 
Do you know how often I read that sentence on this site and then it turns out I did know because I took the time to research the story and find out the information.

Whatever, you don't believe me. Welcome to the club.

Also I didn't say it COULDN'T have happened. I said it doesn't match the facts presented in the case. Theoretical conversations about what might have happened but didn't are beyond the pale in stupidity IMO.

Also please note the citation in the date on this case which was in 2002. Apr 26, 2002

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93466&page=1#.UchnBjSUR00


"The district's policy and the principal's intention is not to ban signing," Superintendent Lois Capabianco said Wednesday. "Everyone needs to know that signing is allowed on the bus."
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you "don't believe" that either.
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
Do you know how often I read that sentence on this site and then it turns out I did know because I took the time to research the story and find out the information.
Click to expand...

No you don't know. Unless you have information that for some odd reason you're specifically not citing that turned up in your research but no one elses, you don't know.

Whatever, you don't believe me. Welcome to the club.
Click to expand...

Yes, I too have noticed that you tend to throw a giant fit and extrapolate too far from the information at hand to a position of 'knowing' and then are called on it. This being a skeptical site, I don't think people are about to stop calling you on it.

Also I didn't say it COULDN'T have happened. I said it doesn't match the facts presented in the case. Theoretical conversations about what might have happened but didn't are beyond the pale in stupidity IMO.
Click to expand...

Then stop saying you know what didn't happen when clearly you don't have that information. If it's stupid beyond the pale to speculate and identify it as speculation, what is if for your speculation you assert is 'knowing'.

Besides that, it does fit with the facts we have, just not the assertions of either side of the case. I'd love to know what happened at what actual facts were presented at trial.

Also please note the citation in the date on this case which was in 2002. Apr 26, 2002

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93466&page=1#.UchnBjSUR00




Let me guess, you "don't believe" that either.
Click to expand...

Like I said, that the school denies it isn't strong evidence that it didn't happen. That it might have stopped happening is irrelevant as well. I don't know if it's true or not, and you don't either despite asserting that you do.

And again, what does the date have to do with the validity of the claim?
 
I do have the information, read the articles, do some research. You might want to consider how the Danica Lesko managed to master sign language when she was injured in November the prior year because a fellow student shot off a bottle rocket near her which lead to her hearing impairment in the first place. Her parents were already suing the school for that incident when this went down.

You not being willing to read the information is not equivalent to me not knowing or the information not being there.

Seriously, I have "secret" information?? SMH LOL
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
You might want to consider how the Danica Lesko managed to master sign language when she was injured in November the prior year because a fellow student shot off a bottle rocket near her which lead to her hearing impairment in the first place.
Click to expand...

Its a while since I read anything about this, but I believe she already knew sign language because her brother is deaf.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Its a while since I read anything about this, but I believe she already knew sign language because her brother is deaf.
Click to expand...

Oh that makes sense then, do you have a source for that? Or did I miss it in one of the previously posted ones.


Here's one I found.

Danica Lesko's enthusiasm for sign language sprung from a desire to talk more clearly with her brother, a nine-year-old born with a hearing impairment.
Click to expand...


http://www.firstamendmentjournal.com/news.aspx?id=5047

Note the date on this article as well

By Phillip Taylor
Special to freedomforum.org
05.23.01
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
I do have the information, read the articles, do some research. You might want to consider how the Danica Lesko managed to master sign language when she was injured in November the prior year because a fellow student shot off a bottle rocket near her which lead to her hearing impairment in the first place. Her parents were already suing the school for that incident when this went down.

You not being willing to read the information is not equivalent to me not knowing or the information not being there.
Click to expand...

I read the information. It doesn't mean I agree with your conclusion. I don't think you know what you assert you know. I'm saying that with the information at hand, your assertions are speculations just like the rest. Well not just like the rest. The rest are content to admit it's all speculation while you assert it is 'knowing'.

Seriously, I have "secret" information?? SMH LOL
Click to expand...

No, you don't. That was my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom