 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Basics / December 2006Will it ever be possible to give a congenitally-deaf individual the ability to hear?
Hi: What are the chances that, in the next 20-50 years, that a congenitally-deaf individual will have a chance to hear sounds via some hi-tech electronic stimulation of the brain with electrical signals exciting and relaxing certains parts of the brain in a similar manner in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once -- hear] does? This would be a bionic substitute for the auditory cortex that could be connected to the brain of a person who has never heard anything from the time he/she was conceived. The brain is "tricked" into perceiving the electronic signals as sound. The brain 'thinks' that it is receiving signals from an actual auditory cortex but in fact is receiving those messages from an electronic device. Does anyone think that such technology will be available [or at least developing] for congenitally-deaf patients in the next 20-50 years? NOTE: Cochlear implants are peripheral rather than central. I am talking about direct stimulation of the brain. The theoretical device I am speaking of can cause auditory perception in a congenitally-deaf individual in the same way auditory perception occurs in dreams [of those who are not congenitelly-deaf] as well as auditory hallucinations. This device would produce audio perceptions much in a similar way that auditory-hallucinations occur -- i.e. within the brain itself -- and could do so even in a congenitally-deaf individual who -- due to some birth-defect, perhaps -- has never had any peripheral auditory nerves [remember, cochlear implants only work in subjects who have peripherial auditory nerves]. Thanks, Radium > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Radium I would venture to say that you could get the technology to work and the perhaps some nerve stimulations but the key thing to realize is that the previously deaf person would hear noise and unable to discern one sound from another. It would be like those of us that hear normally trying to understand what a dog is communicating when it is barking. "Bark ruffshtifff zoingkk blat" The technology would need to be interfaced on babies for it to work. Especially within the first six months of life since that is the point at which the most neurons are available for path connections etc. On an adult it would probably make them go insane from the noise. I imagine it to be like hooking up headphones to a white noise generator along with some percusive sounds, extremely rattling. If you have ever had the experience of a noise so loud it made your eyes go crossed - totally un-interpretable. Thats my opinion. I wouldn't be too pessimistic about the adult brain's ability to learn and adapt. >I would venture to say that you could get the technology to work and >the perhaps some nerve stimulations but the key thing to realize is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Thats my opinion. A few years ago I had a bout of Bell's Palsy. This affected the facial nerve on the left side of my face (made me look as if I had had a stroke) and it also affected the muscle that stretches the ear drum. This resulted in hyperacusis, a symptom where the ear hears sounds as louder than they are, in this case because the muscle in my left ear that would normally stretch the eardrum reflexivly to loud noises was paralyzed (temporarily). The real-worl result was, about a week after I first came down with Bell's Palsy, I went to a Lyle Lovett concert. My wife had gotten us front row seats. I had not noticed any symptoms related to my ear until the point when the Band struck up and started playing. It was like listening to a stereo with a blown left speaker with the sound turned up all the way. To my affected left ear, the sound of the band was about 3 times louder than the right and it was distorted like a blown speaker. Hurt like a sonovagun too. I slapped my hand over my ear and eventually figured that if I stuffed the right amount of tissue in my ear, I could dampen the sound enough to equalize between the left and right ears. I later found out that the muscle in your ear works kind of like...well kind of like a tv censor....when it hears something coming in that seems to loud, it automatically adjusts the ear so that the sound is muted....like a limiter of sorts. I imagine that this is the one of the major obstacles any technology trying to bring hearing to the deaf would have to work hard to overcome. How to effectively autobalance the sound coming in, in a way that matches how the body normally does it. -Chef Juke "EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!" www.chefjuke.com I was initially sceptical about this thread but it has certainly proved interesting, giving us a glimpse of the synaptic activity which underlies all human mental and physical activity, the way the ears may judge direction by phase analysis and how much of the analysis of received data may take place at muscular-level rather than in the brain itself. I suppose one question is how you define the brain. One definition would encompass all systems linked to it. I have had the impression that the retina is indistinguishable from the brain and I suppose many of us have a similar feeling about the cochlea. As the group is no doubt tired of hearing, I was recently fitted with a CI and the perception, when I turn the processor on, is that information is being conveyed directly to my brain (OK - in part this is because the transfer of data across my skin actually takes place immediately above my ear) whereas, with a normal hearing aid, it is being fed to my ear. Another example of distributed processing is the quite incredible ability of our hands to identify incredibly small differences in the weight of objects (I am talking grams). This must involve some sort of muscular memory and ability to compare. And all those instinctive movements we make doing everyday things which seem to happen with little or now involvement of the brain - I have often felt that the essence of sporting skills - skiing or playing tennis - lie in the ability of the limbs to learn to do various complicated things without conscious thought - automatically. Fascinating stuff! > I was initially sceptical about this thread but it has certainly proved > interesting, giving us a glimpse of the synaptic activity which [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Fascinating stuff! I'm not sure if this is what you wish to read - but - a few months back - there was an article in our local paper of a young girl - now about 15 or so - who apparently was deaf from birth. The article related "surgery helps girl deaf from birth - hear for the first time". So - whatever they did - apparently did work - at least to some degree. Does she hear like those of us granted hearing at birth? Who knows! Just thought I would share that with you - given the header topic. IF you wish, you could look up the article itself in the news papers archives. The newspaper is called "The Valley Independent" - and is printed in Westmoreland County - PA. That news paper is also affiliated with the "Tribune Review" which you may also see headers for in any web search related. Whether they ran the story in both - I couldn't say. Lou > I'm not sure if this is what you wish to read - but - a few months back - > there was an article in our local paper of a young girl - now about 15 or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for in any web search related. Whether they ran the story in both - I > couldn't say. I wonder if any two of us hear things--in our heads--the same. Maybe what I perceive as loud, you perceive the same way I would bright or hot. Is there really any way to tell? My feeling is that the experience is similar; but I don't know that there will ever be any way to really tell. Perhaps by observing the areas of the brain that are stimulated by various sensory input....? jak > Lou >> I'm not sure if this is what you wish to read - but - a few months back - >> there was an article in our local paper of a young girl - now about 15 or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> Lou I have to agree! Lou >>> I'm not sure if this is what you wish to read - but - a few months >>> back - there was an article in our local paper of a young girl - now [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Lou I was using toothpicks to hold my eyes open in the last reply - but was going to add - there have been - even recently in other threads - chats on sound quality of radios. Your comment was a good one - given levels of hearing with people individually - it is best to not get too technical or picky on "audio" quality. What may sound good to me - may be muddled to someone else. A "musician" can pick out a sour note much quicker than me - even if his hearing isn't so good anymore. I am sure no two Audiophiles have the same taste in sound. Same with volume loudness. If a guy is wearing double hearing aids as a friend of mine does - something of low volume to me and others - blows his ears out. "I" am not deaf by a long shot. I wish I had stock in the hearing aid companies because in the next 5 years or so I do see a spike in sales. When you can hear a car coming - from the stereo blasting - and it is a good mile or so down the road - that speaks loudly - pun intended. Those people won't be hearing too much longer. Speaking of of hearing aids -- there are "some" people who "may" have some hearing difficulties - won't admit to it, do not wear hearing aids and well - if you get into a pissing match with them as to audio quality, you could be there a while. I've been into electronics quite a while. I've tuned many radios by the "manufacturers tuning directions". But I often find - I tweak it a bit more - by ear - for best quality. Test equipment does ok - but............. So then - we could get into a discussion of "vision" or equipment specs and tolerances - as to whether or not I read my meters correctly or the quality or specs of that equipment was of par! And so the world keeps spinning....... always providing issues with which to debate....... Yeah, this is a thread which can stimulate quite a bit of response if it were to be. I try to not get into arguments over things such as this purely for the reasons given. There is no sense in arguing with people over stupid issues. Sometimes (unfortunately) I don't heed my own advice. I am sure much has been done in Medical advances. Oddly enough - I keep hearing of cures for cancer having been found, etc. Yet just this year and just in the last 6 months, I've either lost friends to cancer OR had some diagnosed with it. Only "one" person - do I know - who was deemed "in remission" - not cured. She was like 5 years old at the start - and deemed in remission at the age of I believe 14. She is now like 22. A very bright and beautiful young lady with "hopefully" a promising career and lifetime ahead. Back to sound quality, though I don't listen to things set too loudly to start, I find I must turn them down completely when using my cell phone - as many complain the sounds wipe "me" out - even if on very low audio where "I" could still hear them at the lowest point. It doesn't matter if I'm using my headset or handset (my headset is always used 99.9% of time) - they hear the background much louder than me - even a "slight" breeze! The exhaust of my truck or engine noise if my windows are down! My heater, etc. I guess in this case - my cell phone has good audio on transmission - but "maybe" too good! Yeah, this is a case where audio quality could be argued til cows start flying.......... It would be interesting to see other views - but "certainly" nothing worth "fighting" about! It could be interesting to see the results of a study where someone who's hearing has been restored from deafness be it from birth or injury - to see what - if any - differences there may be. Someone from deaf from birth may be best as they have no memory of what things sound like. I guess you would have to "program" their mind first - with various sounds - just to get them to know what the sound is being produced by - even a simple knock on the door! WOW - the things we take for granted......... Christmas is a time of miracles, so they say. I hope those of us with these miracles of sound and sight - can keep them - and those who don't have them - may be able to get them. Happy Holidays to all. May they be safe, healthy, rewarding and a picture of brighter days ahead. Lou >Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >auditory nerves [remember, cochlear implants only work in subjects who >have peripherial auditory nerves]. The technology you are talking about is currently under active research and development. However, as far as I know nobody is attempting to stimulate the auditory cortex (as can be done with visual cortex). Instead, they are looking into some of the "way-stations" that the signals from the periphery pass through on their way up to the cortex. The issues are many, but one is that they need to find a "mapping", The cochlea is a parallel system, with separate channels (neurons) for each frequency. The cochlear implant can take advantage of the fact that high-frequency neurons come from the base of the cochlea (nearest the outside world) and low-frequency neurons come from the apex. So there is a regular mapping between location and frequency. The cochlear prosthesis is just a linear array of electrodes, and they basically just thread it up into the cochlea. Wherever it stops, the electrode contacts will be near neurons of some particular frequency. It's not going to be identical from patient to patient, but it's more or less predictable that more-distant electrodes stimulate lower frequencies. But after the nerve bundle connects to the cochlear nucleus ("nucleus" in brain-talk means "bunch of neurons and stuff"),, the mapping is not so neat. The contact electrodes will probably need to be a 2-D surface array, which will have to contact an ill-defined glob of cells...difficult, compared to the simplicity of a linear cochlea. But it gets worse. The signals are getting partially decoded as they work their way up to the cortex. so it's not as simple as one contact for one input frequency. There are neurons that respond to different "features" of the sound frequencies, such as onset and offset or sweeps. So even assuming that a predictable placement can be worked out somehow (or mapped after placement, more likely), the encoding of the stimulating signals for each electrode is going to be much more involved. And as you go higher up toward the cortex, the encoding problem gets worse. I suspect that at the top, things will be so heavily processed and combined with other inputs that the best strategy, would be to just place the electrodes and then have some sort of scheme where electrodes are stimulated in random patterns and the subject reports what is heard. Or, as another post implies, you just plug in some arbitrary stimulus mapping and let the subject learn what it means ("neural plasticity")... eventually. Best regards, Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator Well, I'm with the above post. It's highly unlikely that stimulating cortex would be the most efficient and/or useful way to solve this problem because of brainstem processing. The complicated way that afferent neurons from cochlea hook up to olivary nucleus gives us the ability to sense the direction of a source of a wave that travels at some 330 m/s. After this, things split again. It is a common mistake in neuro to believe that all processing goes on in cortex - the energy costs of synapses are so high that I guarantee there is computation, a "reason" for being if you will, anywhere they exist. Auditory hallucinations are a little more complicated than just activity within the primary auditory cortex, as well - there are affective components (limbic system), they probably come from memory (requiring hippocampal activation), as well as having the auditory component. Lastly, thanks to plastic properties of cerebral cortex, congenitally deaf adults probably don't have "auditory cortex." Since afferent nerves from auditory system haven't stimulated any activity, it is likely that this part of cortex would be "taken over" by adjacent areas, like is seen in stroke recovery; or in Hubel & Weisel's experiments with cat visual cortex. Cheers, Ian Vitro I forwarded the original question to Michael Seidman, an ENT at Henry Ford Health Systems, and here is his reply: Dear Radium, My answer is too lengthy to really discuss in an email, but I will try to touch on the highlights. There is already extensive research being conducted at hair cell regeneration in the inner ear. I have a lengthy scientific talk on this which will be available on my website within the next several weeks. We are already implanting electrodes into the auditory cortex (a study I have developed), you can see this on www.bodylanguagevitamin.com -- look in the educational resources section (this is a commercial website) and scroll way down and one of the first powerpoint presentations which has some of this work on the site. Two of my patients are experiencing auditory hallucinations when the power is turned up. Part of the problem is that people who have NEVER learned speech and acquired language will have an EXCEPTIONALLY difficult time gaining hearing through stimulation at the cochlea or the brain. We know that if you cover someone's eyes from birth for the first 1-2 years of life they will be blind forever, as the neural tracts are not laid down. Some have said that this may be true for hearing as well. I could discuss this for hours and write pages and pages, but I will have to stop here. Michael D. Seidman, MD., FACS Henry Ford Health System Director of Otologic/Neurotologic Surgery Medical-Director Tinnitus Center Medical Director of the Complementary/Integrative Medicine Center Associate Clinical Professor Wayne State University-Dept of Oto HNS 6777 W. Maple Rd W. Bloomfield, Michigan 48323 USA > Well, I'm with the above post. It's highly unlikely that stimulating > cortex would be the most efficient and/or useful way to solve this [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ian Vitro Big thanks to all those who took the time and energy to answer my question. > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once -- > hear] does? Given your time frame, the odds are better than even. But, it might involve some brain adaptation (learning). The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect that the odds against an implant working on a random person would be around 0.001% - negligible. I can say, with some authority, that these people hear. A robin (or a microwave or a car) chirps and they hear it! A piece of paper falls on a table and they hear it. In fact a match falls on a table (or a cat purrs) and it comes through loud and clear. So in essence, anyone born without functioning hearing, given expenditure of about $30k, can be given the ability to hear. Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an angry partner) which/who is about to hit them. >The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without >hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an >angry partner) which/who is about to hit them. Sorry to say, it's not quite that simple. Yes, most of the recipients can "hear", but it's not very close to normal hearing. Very few, for example, can enjoy music. The reason is pretty clear when you understand that the normal cochlea can resolve several thousand different frequencies... because it has separate neurons for each one. The coclear implants typically have 22 electrodes, so in some ideal sense you might hope they could resolve 22 different frequency bands. Alas, it's nowhere near this good. The first issue is that many of those electrodes never even make it into the proper part of the cochlea, since the surgeon can't get it in all the way for whatever reason. Then, the patient may not have all the original nerves intact, so there is nothing to receive the stimulus in some regions. Finally, there is the (BIG) problem of current spread. The electrodes are not sitting right on the nerves they are attempting to stimulate... the current must travel a certain distance. Unfortunately, it is travelling through (essentially) saltwater, so the current spreads to surrounding nerves, not just the one that is closest. Besides limiting the selectivity, the current spread also affects how many channels you can activate at once. There are very sophisticated stimulation schemes that try to address these issues, but the last I heard a typical result for overall frequency resolution is about 8 channels. I have heard simulations of various numbers of channels, and believe me, 8 is pretty lame compared to normal hearing. However, it is enough that with training many patients can learn to use a telephone. That's the "gold standard" in CI circles (since the patient doesn't have any lipreading cues), but even there the whole trick works because normal speech is very redundant and full of contextual cues. So, we still have a *looonng* way to go before we can come anywhere close to restoring "hearing" in the sense that most of us think of it. Best regards, Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator >>The short answer is 100%. <snip> >>Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an >>approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >can "hear", but it's not very close to normal hearing. Very few, for >example, can enjoy music. Yes buy that was not what he was saying. They will have functional hearing sufficient for communication and survival. Music and other subtleties involve many, many issues. Kal I understand Cochlear is developing a 48-electrode array - difficult for the reasons you mention. And still a long way from thousands. Incidentally, in my case, as a recent implantee, all electrodes worked. I have yet to tackle music - except what I pick up listening to radio/DVDs/TV. And I have one ear which, with a hearing aid, can hear up to 1000hz and, within that limitation, can enjoy music (No violins but most vocal not bad and, oddly, clarinets come through) In response to Kalman and others, >From reports from other implantees, experience with music varies widely (I find myself wondering whether those who do well were, in their hearing years, tone deaf - plenty of tone-deaf people love/ enjoy music and the deficiencies of CI mentioned above would not affect them - my wife is tone-deaf and, as a child, had a hopeless ambition to be in the choir - naturally she always, eventually, got turfed out!). The other thing is the ability of the brain to adapt - learn. I intend to work with a keyboard to see if it is possible to follow the chromatic scale - we will see. And the other string to my bow is continuing development of CI software. The big thing, for people interested in music, is that Cochlear must be keen to sell CI technology to populous increasingly affluent Asian countries whose languages are tonal. For CI to work well in these countries its ability to convey music is, coincidentally, improved. Harking back to the original post, the question was whether people born deaf could be enabled to hear. The answer is, as I said, yes. Not hear well, but, like Dr. Johnson's bi-pedal dog, be able to do it at all. As has often been mentioned (yet is widely overlooked) environmental noises are important - sometimes vital - for our survival in a dangerous world > I understand Cochlear is developing a 48-electrode array - difficult > for the reasons you mention. And still a long way from thousands. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > in these countries its ability to convey music is, coincidentally, > improved. Rush Limbaugh says that with his cochlear implant he can listen to music he knew before his auto-immune condition rendered him completely deaf, and hear it, but music he did not learn when his hearing was normal, he cannot now decipher or appreciate. A very interesting observation, as he is a former disk jockey, who now makes talk radio his livelihood. Artis > Rush Limbaugh says that with his cochlear implant he can listen to music > he knew before his auto-immune condition rendered him completely deaf, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Artis I was under the impression that "America's paragon of virtue" was abusing oxycotinin, a prescription drug for pain, which they now attribute to causing his rapid hearing loss. I remember when he was still losing his hearing, the doctors thought is was an auto-immune condition but never saw one progress so fast. >> Rush Limbaugh says that with his cochlear implant he can listen to music >> he knew before his auto-immune condition rendered him completely deaf, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I remember when he was still losing his hearing, the doctors thought is > was an auto-immune condition but never saw one progress so fast. Your memory is incorrrect. Mr. Limbaugh, as many others, has a family history of auto-immune disease. There is no way, short of post mortem exam, to make such an accusation as you make, so you, nor does anyone else, know the actual cause of his loss of hearing. Are you happy another human being has been rendered deaf? Michael >> I was under the impression that "America's paragon of virtue" was abusing >> oxycotinin, a prescription [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Michael No my memory isn't incorrect. There was a discussion with a specialist in the field ( I did not catch his name, nor do I remember the exact date) on the radio concerning Mr. Limbaugh's condition and he was amazed how fast the progression was. At the time they thought it was auto-immune. Now there is reason to believe he did it to himself by abusing oxycotinin. Mr. Limbaugh is an a.shole about 2/3's of the day. The other 1/3 he is probably asleep. During his waking hours he is busy conjuring up moral judgments on just about everyone on the planet outside of the Republican party. I find it humorous that he got caught abusing prescription drugs. After all, a good, moral Republican and Christian like your hero would never do such a thing. Nowhere did I mention I was happy about his hearing loss. Now what else do you want to assume? >>> I was under the impression that "America's paragon of virtue" was >>> abusing oxycotinin, a prescription [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Now what else do you want to assume? Odd. I never said this fellow was my hero. I just used information from the Associated Press concerning his loss and my statement is a quote from one of the physicians consulted by the AP. You have a tremendous amount of hate in you sir. Perhaps anger management might be in order? Michael > Rush Limbaugh says that with his cochlear implant he can listen to music he > knew before his auto-immune condition rendered him completely deaf, and hear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Artis Interesting point - I have commented before of the ability of the human brain to store vast amounts of music - not just the melody line, harmony and words but the whole performance - the orchestra, the lot - for hundreds of pieces in my case - maybe thousands. We leave those horrible little ipod things for dead. I'll bet that many reading this will recall instances where they have dredged up a song, virtually complete, which they have not thought of for 20 years or more. I suspect that people differ widely in this capacity though I would also suspect that my ability is pretty typical. >> Rush Limbaugh says that with his cochlear implant he can listen to music >> he [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I suspect that people differ widely in this capacity though I would > also suspect that my ability is pretty typical. Verdi said that opera was far superior to the theater because people could hear 4 different people sing at once and yet understand each of them. Gives an interesting slant to music processing in the central mechanism. Michael > The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without > hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an > angry partner) which/who is about to hit them. Um. I was talking of a case where the congenitally-deaf patient was born without any cochlear nerves. So no cochlear implant will help this patient. Whats the solution now? >> The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without >> hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > born without any cochlear nerves. So no cochlear implant will help this > patient. Whats the solution now? One word. Plastics. Michael > >> The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without > >> hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Michael I see. One solution is to prevent neuroplasticity from occuring. What would be the disadvantages of such a solution? I am not sure it would be possible for someone born with no cochlear nerve to ever hear, unless an implant far beyond what we have now were implanted very early in life - say during the first three years or so. There is tons of evidence showing that acquisition of phoneme distinction, the building block of comprehension, is established very early in life. Again, like Hubel and Weisel`s Nobel-winning work shows, pieces of cortex that do not get used for their "normal" function are taken over by adjacent areas for increases in function. Limbaugh`s observation is interesting, and suggests the same thing - you can hear music that you know, because it is still in memoy and brains are very good at pattern completion; but new music ends up being beyond you - presumably because you lack the resolution to make out all of the different frequencies. Blocking neuroplasticity would be the worst thing you could ever do. You would eliminate learning of any kind. Eliminate the ability of brains to recover after strokes or other infarcts. You would, in essence, block the thing that makes brains so bloody useful. Even Rush Limbaugh`s (well, it`s useful to him!). Ian Vitro >I am not sure it would be possible for someone born with no cochlear > nerve to ever hear, unless an implant far beyond what we have now were [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ian Vitro Gosh, two slurs against Limbaugh. I'll have to start listening to his show. To engender such a visceral response from people he must be quite interesting. Michael >>I am not sure it would be possible for someone born with no cochlear >> nerve to ever hear, unless an implant far beyond what we have now were [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Michael A good friend of mine used to listen to ole Rush almost religiously. I gave the guy a chance. I found him to be a loud mouth - full of crap - self centered - egotistical - a.s. IF he can do better than those he opposes - why then - doesn't he "run" for the job? Truth is, he like so many "talk show" hosts - can talk a good game - but bottom line - don't have the balls to try to make change. And THEN - to be caught doing drugs and oh gee - with a bottle of Viagra or was it a "penis pump" - at the airport - THAT IS A HOOT!!!!!!!!!! He just went to show - he is NOT any better than those he put down - including any one calling in to his show to whom he opposed. It never fails - those who place themselves above all others - ALWAYS fall - and fall HARD. Ya got to love it! > Gosh, two slurs against Limbaugh. I'll have to start listening to his show. > To engender such a visceral response from people he must be quite > interesting. > > Michael Only to people with no life, or desire to think for themselves. If they could bottle his show it would put the sleeping pill companies out of business. The test pattern at the old TV station I worked at was more interesting.  SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to > prove it. > Member of DAV #85. > > Michael A. Terrell > Central Florida Lots of guys have served their country, including me. Most don't brag about it. Michael R. Michael Ridenhour said: >> Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to >> prove it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Lots of guys have served their country, including me. > Most don't brag about it. You just did! Your point would have been made without "including me". Steve = : ^ ) > Michael Ridenhour said: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve = : ^ ) Right. That's why I said "lots of guys". There was no mention of the braggart association being singular. Nice catch. You should be very proud of your fairness sensitivity. Micghael R. > > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to > > prove it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Michael R. It is there to remind a net stalker that he hasn't been able to have my internet account closed, or stop my all volunteer project to help very low income disabled Veterans receive a computer for free. We collect, repair, and give away computers to these men and women in the Central FLorida area. The stalker has made numerous phone calls from Ontario, Oregon to a church that was listed as a drop-off point, and to government agencies to try to get them to shut us down. The other reason is that some newsgroups I visit are full of anti American morons who delight in damning our military so its only fair to warn them before I tear into their sorry a.ses. It is not a brag, it is simple fact. I am old, 100% disabled, and damn sick and tired of the crap I hear heaped on our troops. You served? Good for you. What branch, and what did you do? I was a broadcast engineer for AFRTS. No downtime allowed and no support, in a hostile environment. I made some good friends, and saw places I never would have traveled to. BTW, I haven't seen the name Ridenhour since I graduated from high school. Our dean of boys was named Dale Ridenhour. :) SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Michael, My apologies to a fellow real veteran. I served 4 in the Air Force at TAC Headquarters. I volunteered for war zone service (hey, I was young), but was turned down 10 times because I was "critical". Nonsense of course, but DOD policy. And the average life of a helicopter pilot in Viet Nam (where I was hoping to go) was about 8 weeks. Sounded terribly exciting to me at 20. My hats off to you and I'm sorry, I didn't realize the tag line had an actual function. Michael R. BTW, where was Dale from? Missouri? >> > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to >> > prove it. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > BTW, I haven't seen the name Ridenhour since I graduated from high > school. Our dean of boys was named Dale Ridenhour. :) > Michael, > My apologies to a fellow real veteran. I served 4 in the Air Force at TAC > Headquarters. I volunteered for war zone service (hey, I was young), but was > turned down 10 times because I was "critical". Nonsense of course, but DOD > policy. And the average life of a helicopter pilot in Viet Nam (where I was > hoping to go) was about 8 weeks. Sounded terribly exciting to me at 20. I also worked on the "Weather Vision" system at Ft. Rucker, Al. in the early '70s, for the helicopter flight and air traffic control schools. It was at Cairn Airfield, about five miles from the main base. > My hats off to you and I'm sorry, I didn't realize the tag line had an > actual function. No problem. There are a very high number of Veterans in my area, and we are quite involved in the community. While online, I want others to know that US Veterans have nothing to be ashamed of. I also had some drunken moron claim that I had never served, then claimed that I wasn't a veteran because I never saw combat. Current numbers show that only one out of seven who serve in the military ever see combat, but many die from accidents and never saw a battlefield. > BTW, where was Dale from? Missouri? Monroe, Ohio. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > Current numbers show that only one out of seven who serve in the military ever see combat, but many die from accidents and never saw a battlefield.-- > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to > prove it. > Member of DAV #85. > > Michael A. Terrell > Central Florida Hey Terrell, I have a brother in Central Florida who worked at Da Nang as an aircraft mechanic. Is that considered seeing a battlefield by the narrow minds you have to put up with? He had to go into a trench beside the planes during attacks by the VC, but finally decided that if a bullet hit the fully loaded jet he was lying beside, he'd be in little pieces anyway, so he kept working. His girlfriend in town was killed by a mortar from the loving freedom fighters of Ho Chi Minh, who targeted civilians because they didn't shoot back. Like al Qaeda does today. Artis Forgot another important point about the plasticity deal - no plasticity would mean that there would be no way for the brains of the patient to adapt to the cochlear nerve substitute and therefore "learn" to perceive auditory stimuli. It would be self-defeating. I'm not sure that there would be any way whatsoever to be able to give hearing to an adult congenitally deaf individual. Keep in mind we're not talking about restoring hearing to someone, we're talking about starting from scratch and giving someone hearing for the first time, well after the brain has passed the developmental stage where it "learns" to use the sensory nerves that carry information into it. Simply not sure that there's any way to manage it. I don't care for many of Rush's opinions, but it sucks for anybody to go suddenly deaf, no matter what the reason. Ian Vitro > > Current numbers show that only > one out of seven who serve in the military ever see combat, but many die [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > freedom fighters of Ho Chi Minh, who targeted civilians because they didn't > shoot back. Like al Qaeda does today. According to some of the idiots, if you didn't come home in a body bag you weren't a Veteran, and you took your pay under false pretenses. I'd like to round some of them up, give them one old pair of fatigues, a worn out M16, and a one way pane ticket to Iraq. When they arrive, you give them two loaded clips for the M16, and a weeks MREs and tell them that they have to earn the trip home. As far as your brother goes, he did have a dangerous job, but you don't have to be near a battle to be too close to a JP4 fire. Some moron ran a stop sign at the entrance of Cairn Airfield in 1973 and slammed into a tanker full of jet aircraft fuel. It blew up, burn the truck and the driver. The moron that cause the accident was in the base hospital with a broken leg. I was five miles away, and felt the shock wave. It burnt though the asphalt highway, and all that was left of the truck was the back end of the tank, and part of one axle from the cab. My MOS was broadcast engineer. The station I was to be sent to in Vietnam was over run a few months later and the whole staff was killed. It was miles from the nearest fighting. At the time, I was in Alaska at the US Army cold weather test site working for AFRTS at one of the coldest spots on earth. If you fell and couldn't get back on your feet, you could easily freeze to death within 15 minutes. A number of soldiers told me that they preferred the battlefield to their time at Ft Greely. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.