Request for Research Data

[Frank]

Dear Barbara Snyder,
   Thanks for your last note to me.  I toyed with the ideas (and an outline)
of a sarcastic response that would make your next dental cleaning
appointment superfluous; but choose to attempt being candid in a soft shoe
routine.
   I inquired, Barbara, could anyone refer me to good printed material that
would aid ASL study beyond the basic level.  Notice , please, that Dr Jemina
in Australia recently placed an open invitation for ideas for "DISTANCE
LEARNING" techniques.  She's noted in a letter that she teaches on the
Interpreter level of Signing. Do you notice a significant difference between
my inquery and Dr Jemina's query?  Certainly I specified Printed material,
and she left the media open; but  the purpose was clearly the same,
Distance Learning beyond the entry level of sign.
   My note you took offence with was my reparte to being savagly attacked
with a debate team maneuver; I was assaulted Rhetorically.  I pray you will
read the next 2 paragraphs carefully, for the material is not such as is
usually found in conversation.
   My interest was in identifying reliable printed material to encourage
growth in understanding of the beautiful language we call Amislan.  I never
at any point wrote anything whatsoever about excluding personal contact and
Sign transactions from my studies.  Your comment was , "Why Frank do you
want to learn Sign without using it?" ( I summarize your content)  The
interesting followup of your slur was that OdeeOdee (Barbara O'Dea) stated I
had never answered you question, "Why Frank do you want to learn Sign
without using it?"
   YOU, Barbara Snyder, said learn Sign without using it.  I never at any
time said this, or implied it.  Next you began to attack the idea YOU
introduced as foolish. If you feel its its foolish, I suppose it is foolish,
to you; but you introduced the idea, not I.
 [[[First you introduce an idea you scorn, you attack your own idea; and you
pretend that I proposed the idea.  The Rhetoric is good, unless your debate
opponent sees through it.  A debate team member proposes a foolish idea,
asserts the opponent had said it, then demolishes the idea saying how stupid
the opponent is for saying such a foolish thing.]]]
   Notice that Barbara o'Dea was taken in by your Rhetoric.  OdeeOdee said
in her  letter, "Why didn't Frank answer the question?.
     There was no question Barbara Snyder.  You tried to put your own words
in my mouth, then demanded why I had said what I did not say.  My reaction,
I confess was instinct.  You attacked me Rhetorically.  I was furious.  The
letter you called panegyrics  was actually not a bad letter at all.  I
regret that I left out an idea.
   The greater part of conversation is listening.  Hearing meaning, and
thinking with another is the art of spreading more light than heat in
conversations. Like Sign, this art must be practiced.
   Sincerely yours, Frank



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Valerie Sutton" <sutton at signwriting.org>
To: <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [sw-l] Request for Research Data


> SignWriting List
> April 17, 2006
>
> Stuart Thiessen wrote:
> > Yes, I am interested in seeing how the SignSpelling rules are applied.
> > I am interested also to see what exceptions if any are out there. I
> > will certainly be including the spelling rules you have developed in
> > the process of my research to see how actual writing compares. Maybe
> > we find that in certain situations, the rules create more problems
> > than they help. In other cases, we may find that the rules help us
> > solve problems because they give us good guidelines when trying to
> > compose the sign.  For those situations with exceptions, it will be
> > helpful to try to undersand why the writer decided to go in a
> > different direction than the rules.
>
> Hello Stuart!
> I am enjoying reading your thoughtful messages...an interesting project.
>
> The problem is that most writers are writing SignWriting without
> realizing that there are SignSpelling Rules. So the only accurate way
> to judge the question above is to study those writers who have the
> same training...and have written for about the same length of time.
> If you have a group of people who all have learned the SignSpelling
> Rules, and have tried to apply them accurately following the rules,
> and then later they chose to write a certain way...that is a real study.
>
> But if you are basing a beginner's writing, who has never even been
> told there are SignSpelling Rules...and you look at their writing as
> if they made a choice, when they had no choice to make, because they
> didn't know there were SignSpelling Rules to begin with...then the
> study is not an accurate one...
>
> but it is hard to find people all at the same writing level...
>
> It is similar to people who have never seen SignWriting at all, who
> believe it is See Signs, or who say it is changing ASL, but they have
> actually never looked at the writing system in their lives...To give
> their opinion equal credence, to another person who has studied the
> system well and can read and write it, would not be a good comparison
> either...
>
> SignWriting is unique in history in one respect...There are a lot of
> people learning it from the internet, who have never met another
> person who knows SignWriting, and their knowledge of reading and
> writing the system is as good as our internet lessons are, and they
> are far from perfect...
>
> When the DAC used to come over to my home, we had such a rich
> experience together...we were a team and we really worked hard to get
> a good writing system, but I am just learning myself how to
> communicate some of our writing to others on the internet..in this
> rather impersonal world...
>
> I am hoping that in time, video conferencing will become so easy that
> one-on-one teaching will be easier for us to do over the internet,
> and that should help...
>
> Val ;-)
>
>
>