Sign Language Ban on Bus?

[truethat]

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'.



No, you don't. That was my point.

Ok then we'll agree to disagree that following up on an incident that happened 12 years ago and has already had a resolution 11 years ago that shows what actually happened in a case is not "knowing."

 

[tyr_13]

The lawsuit was refiled in 2007, so sadly the resolution wasn't eleven years ago.

 

[truethat]

Citation please? And oops six years ago is "not knowing." ETA Refiling a lawsuit doesn't mean it was not resolved. It was, but it wasn't resolved to the satisfaction of the family. IOW $$$$$

 

[truethat]

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.”

http://www.regrettheerror.com/2007/12/05/paper-makes-woman-deaf/
The headline on an article in some editions Sunday incorrectly identified a former Branchburg elementary student as “deaf.” The student, Danica Lesko, now 18, has refiled a discrimination lawsuit against the school board. Though she is moderately hearing impaired, Lesko is not deaf and does not need sign language to communicate.
This entry was written by Craig Silverman, posted on December 5, 2007 at 8:00 am,

Oh and here's this which is interesting. Going to find a better source though.

Those damn little pesky facts, eh.

 

[truethat]

I've also seen information that this was related to "gang signs" and that all types of signing like it were banned for that reason. But why even bother going for the actual details right.

It's so much more fun to pretend that the big ol' nasty school board picked on a deaf student who could "only communicate through signing" (even though she'd only lost her hearing 6 months prior) and was silenced.

That's just much more fun to run with.

Anyway, bored again. Have fun with the conversation about make believe.

 

[tyr_13]

I've also seen information that this was related to "gang signs" and that all types of signing like it were banned for that reason. But why even bother going for the actual details right.

I don't know where you got that information or why you'd believe it makes the school look better. But you said you knew that signing was not banned. So the signing you know was not banned was banned for a valid reason?

It's so much more fun to pretend that the big ol' nasty school board picked on a deaf student who could "only communicate through signing" (even though she'd only lost her hearing 6 months prior) and was silenced.

That's just much more fun to run with.

It was already pointed out how that bit from the father was either hyperbole or an outright lie. But again, the information doesn't exclude that they were either trying to harass this family or simply negligent in providing.

Anyway, bored again. Have fun with the conversation about make believe.

What make believe? For someone who complains about others not getting the facts you sure do like to make up facts about others.

 

[tyr_13]

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.”

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.

Citation please? And oops six years ago is "not knowing." ETA Refiling a lawsuit doesn't mean it was not resolved. It was, but it wasn't resolved to the satisfaction of the family. IOW $$$$$

Here's the post that linked to it, here's you responding to the post and complaining that people don't get the facts right, and then the post where you forgot the stuff about you complaining people don't read things and then speculating.

 

[truethat]

LOL I KNEW someone would do that. The article that said she turned 18 was also written years ago. Hello?

Tiresome. I'm not speculating. I DO speculate, and when I do I say I do. But really tiresome....

Try reading babycakes, the issue was resolved in 2002. Them pending through a lawsuit based on her "trauma" is a lawsuit designed to get a "pain and suffering settlement." NOT a legal issue. So...whatever....tiresome tiresome tiresome.

A deaf girl was not banned from "signing" on the bus. The case on that has been closed.

 

[Matthew Best]

Look it up on google and then you will see the citation in the details of the link.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dan...hrome.0.69i57.7469j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Second link down, you can see the date.

Right, so it's not on the actual page at all. Anyone clicking the link in the OP would go straight to the page, not via Google's search results and thus would have no idea that the story dates from 2001 rather than 2013. Seems like a silly way for ABC to date their stories to me.

 

[Matthew Best]

Citation please? And oops six years ago is "not knowing."

You need a citation for a lawsuit being re-filed in 2007? If you were reading properly, like you keep telling everyone else to do, you would have seen that I already posted a citation.

 

[tyr_13]

LOL I KNEW someone would do that. The article that said she turned 18 was also written years ago. Hello?

I know. 2007 like I said. Like Matthew Best said. Like the post you quoted from and then complained that people don't read said.

Tiresome. I'm not speculating. I DO speculate, and when I do I say I do. But really tiresome....

Try reading babycakes, the issue was resolved in 2002. Them pending through a lawsuit based on her "trauma" is a lawsuit designed to get a "pain and suffering settlement." NOT a legal issue. So...whatever....tiresome tiresome tiresome.

The lawsuit is not a legal issue? Perhaps you're assert that because it's a civil lawsuit like the original was... wait, that's where it stops making sense. That means it wasn't resolved, or it was resolved temporarily.

Besides all that, even if they 'resolved' it, that doesn't mean it was resolved well.

A deaf girl was not banned from "signing" on the bus. The case on that has been closed.

You don't know that. The school asserts that she was not, you assert that she was not but that they had good reason to, and the family contends otherwise.

I don't know if it was a vindictive school, a stupid bus driver, a litigious family, and the only thing you've proven is that you will overestimate your level of knowledge on virtually everything. Lecturing others to read to get the facts, and then not reading and getting facts wrong, is just the ironic icing on the failcake.

 

[truethat]

OMG seriously LMAO

Now we've on to the next style that people do called "making crap up" in order to bolster their speculation.

Now it's a vindictive bus driver eh?

Evidence? None right???? Here ya go again.

 

[Foolmewunz]

OMG seriously LMAO

Now we've on to the next style that people do called "making crap up" in order to bolster their speculation.

Now it's a vindictive bus drive eh?

Evidence? None right???? Here ya go again.

I assume you're working on reposting that in English, right?

 

[tyr_13]

OMG seriously LMAO

Now we've on to the next style that people do called "making crap up" in order to bolster their speculation.

Now it's a vindictive bus drive eh?

Evidence? None right???? Here ya go again.

Actually of the three off the cuff possibilities I list that the information is consistent with, none were a vindictive bus drive(r). That's another possibility though.

 

[truethat]

Whatever, you're now down to making crap up to bolster your speculation. For what purpose tell me? Like I said, have fun with "make believe."

 

[tyr_13]

Alright, what have I made up?