GallyBuster Claims I Misunderstood Fernandes.

There is no misunderstanding.

I still stand on my words and so do my peers who watched the videoclip . Anyone who saw that videotape obviously can see Jane signing ‘threatening to be shot’  with the a sign of a gun pointing to herself.  Fernandes Threatened By A Person With Gun? A Videoclip Included

Though she didn’t use the word gun verbally, her sign language said it all. She shouldn’t have used the sign for gun if she meant a different meaning of shot. Fingerspelling, yes. Signing  gun pointing to one’s chest, no.  Nice try, though, but  it doesn’t work on people fluent in ASL. You may try to mislead the clueless public, but please leave it to the deaf people to interpret what they see on the tape. The meaning is very obvious to us, thank you.  There is no misunderstanding. We got it the first time. We got it the second time.  Please don’t insult our intelligence.

Incidentally, look at the timing: Terrorism, Anarchy, and Gun? All in one day? No wonder why the BoT is afraid to go to the campus without the escort of security personnel.

Yes, she was trying to paint a violent picture of the peaceful protesting students. Again she had harmed both the Gallaudet University and its students with her unprofessional statements.  Again she proved that she does not have the credibility to be a leader worthy to take up the reins of this world renowned university and has shown no inclination to resolve the conflict. Her reckless and improper statements on that day were designed to create a wider chasm between her and the whole Gallaudet Community while she attempted to gain the sympathy of the public as a victim.  So far I fail to see any sincere attempt to draw the Gallaudet Community closer and move toward a resolution between her and all the entities of Gallaudet Stakeholders.

 If you are getting upset, perhaps you should suggest Jane to practice caution when speaking to the media.

A Contemporary Gally Trend: Misinterpreting

Mishka Zena: “What is Jane doing? All this talk about anarchy, terrorism, and now guns? This is a peaceful and civil protest. Why is she trying to portray the protestors as out of control and dangerous?”

Everybody’s starting to upset me. They continue to pull things out of context, and interpret things literally. They are choosing to ignore situational context, which is crucial to examining things in the light. (Read the blogs!)

Yes, in NBC 4 News video, Jane K. did say, “I’ve been threatened to be shot, yes”. But this was simply an answer to a reporter’s question. Look at the video again! EMPHASIS: Jane K. did not say anything about guns. This figuratively means she has been threatened by the protest to accept defeat, which she says she will not do. And besides, how else do you sign “SHOT”? Of course, the verbial sign is iconic of guns. I can see where the misunderstanding took place. GALLYBUSTERS