[blindlaw] [blind law] rift over law suit

Fri Dec 1 17:22:26 CST 2006

If enough of our members disagree with the current policy, then it will
change.

Yes, with that one I certainly agree. If you take a pole right now about
this particular issue, I submit to you that most of us will vote no. The
reason why some of the ridiculous policies like such exist, is because the
real general membership never has an honest vote. We could debate that
point, but I am bound to hear the same old justifications.

Rod 
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:53 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit

You may not, or may choose not to see them, but there are genuine 
differences between the NFB and the ACB and their approaches and 
beliefs.  Yes, there is some disagreement for disagreements sake, but 
there are also genuine differences.

The NFB is doing what it is doing because we believe it is the right 
thing.  It isn't to disagree with the ACB, and it is logical to 
us.  Just because you can't or won't examine the arguments from other 
perspectives, doesn't mean those perspectives aren't valid.  Your 
views are valid too, but we all are never going to agree.  We agree 
on as much as we can, and try to move forward.

If enough of our members disagree with the current policy, then it 
will change.

Dave

At 03:57 PM 12/1/2006, you wrote:
>It is equally preposterous that such division needs to occur at this moment
>in order to fight a disagreement that occurred almost 70 years ago. This is
>a golden opportunity for all blind people to be united, and I don't believe
>that one needs to necessarily be living in the U.S to see the importance of
>such a necessity. The reality is that even a five year-old would not be
>willing to be persuaded by the arguments that have surfaced the public from
>our leadership, because the logic is simply not there.
>
>Perhaps      my biggest frustration with this pseudo policy is that the
sole
>logic behind it is all driven by this 70 years old division between the two
>organizations, and there is no sound justification to support it. I was not
>alive 70 years ago, I don't know what happened at that meeting, I don't
care
>about what happened at that meeting, and I am not willing to be persuaded
by
>the older generation in their attempt to impose this historical bigotry on
>people of my generation.
>
>     It is shameful that the older generation from both organizations has
not
>given up this fight and affords a chance to my generation so we can have an
>opportunity to move on and focus on things that would better our lives in
>the future. We have in the past expressed our frustrations on NABS
regarding
>the same issue, and it seems that instead of this older generation
realizing
>that this fight should be terminated, we are constantly being bombarded
with
>numerous pseudo policies and nonsensical ideologies from both
organizations,
>as to why unity is not a viable option so that more progress can take
place.
>The unfortunate reality is that they have been successful of getting some
of
>the easily persuadable ones to buy into their arguments.
>
>The Opposition to this case is analogous to a person objecting to being
>release early from prison, because the person doesn't want to be seen as a
>coward in the eyes of society. This would be characterized as being
nothing,
>but absurd. This is the reason that no one, except those who voted and were
>influenced by the 2002 resolution, can understand our current position on
>the issue. Democrats and republicans have their major disagreements daily,
>but I submit to you, if they find a golden opportunity to capture the most
>notorious terrorist in the world, even that require the making of some
>sacrifice for their party, they will see the country first, then party
>second. Why can't we, as an organization muster the same courage to do the
>same? Why can't we see the future first as suppose to our membership in one
>organization over another? If there is an answer, please explain because my
>future is on the line.
>
>Rod Alcidonis
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf of David Andrews
>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:51 PM
>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>
>Not being from the U.S. you might not realize that the NFB was formed
>in 1940, and in the early 1960's a faction that became the ACB split
>off from us.
>
>
>It is unreasonable to expect all blind people to think alike, or
>agree all of the time.  No one else does, so why should we be
>different.  Finally, this is not the first time the two organizations
>have held different positions on a given topic.
>
>Dave
>
>At 10:57 AM 12/1/2006, you wrote:
> >As some one who doesn't live in the us, this may be none of my business.
> >   Still it seems more than a little rediculous that having
> > organized themselves, america's blind community has taken the first
> > available opportunity to split.
> >
> >   Of course, keeping together is no justification for stiffling
> > legitimate views of dissent but surely, there's a better phorum for
> > such dissent than the public press?
> >
> >   kind regards Ger
> >
> >blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote:
> >   Send blindlaw mailing list submissions to
> >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
> >
> >You can reach the person managing the list at
> >blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
> >
> >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >than "Re: Contents of blindlaw digest..."
> >
> >
> >Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Re: National Federation of the Blind Comments on Federal
> >Court Ruling on U.S. Currency (Will Miller)
> >2. Re: National Federation of the Blind Comments on Federal
> >Court Ruling on U.S. Currency (Steve Jacobson)
> >3. Re: National Federation of the Blind Comments onFederal Court
> >Ruling on U.S. Currency (Kathleen Hagen)
> >4. Re: National Federation of the Blind Comments onFederal Court
> >Ruling on U.S. Currency (albert griffith)
> >5. Re: National Federation of the Blind CommentsonFederal Court
> >Ruling on U.S. Currency (Peter Donahue)
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Message: 1
> >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:46:57 -0500
> >From: "Will Miller"
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on
> >Federal Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List"
> >Message-ID:
> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> >reply-type=original
> >
> >I am sorry if my response was harsh, but I feel strongly about this
> >particular issue. I agree that we all have a right to our own opinions,
and
> >I do not presume that mine are better than the next list member's.
However,
> >based on what I have heard about this issue, I strongly disagree with
NFB's
> >position. I do not feel that any of the arguments against making currency
> >accessible are persuasive, particularly the arguments claiming that
> >accessible currency would be detrimental to the blind.
> >For the record, I am not currently a member of ACB or any other
>organization
> >exclusively of or for the blind. However, I value and benefit from the
> >progress that the NFB, ACB, and other organizations have made. I am an
> >open-minded person and could be persuaded on this issue, and I would be
> >greatly interested in a dialog where both sides are represented (although
I
> >probably would not participate all that much since I am getting ready for
> >law school exams).
> >Call me stubborn, but I have a hard time being told to, as you say, "just
> >accept it as it is." I think refusal to accept things as they are leads
to
> >progress and should be particularly valued among the blind community.
> >I have listed a few problems I have with the NFB's position on accessible
> >currency below:
> >1. a $250 device is not affordable to many blind people.
> >2. I do not think that the US Treasury or any other agency will agree to
> >mass purchase the device and provide them to all blind people.
> >3. One of the arguments against the adoption of accessible currency is
that
> >it somehow suggests that blind people are dependant on modifications. Is
it
> >more independent to rely on agencies to purchase and provide technology?
> >4. Don't we already have enough devices to lug around?
> >5. What if the device breaks or is lost? You would either have to buy
> >another one or wait for an agency to provide you with another (fat
chance).
> >6. Aren't demanding accessible dollar bills and accessible websites
> >basically asking for the same thing? Namely, that things be designed
> >accessibly to prevent needless barriers?
> >7. Sure, people could still be cheated with tactilly discernable bills,
but
> >it would take moare than simply being lied to. Blind people would have a
> >means of ensuring that bills are what others say they are. Someone would
> >have to significantly alter a bill to deceive you.
> >8) The best way to provide access to a thing is to make it accessible
> >without the need for adaptation or assistive devices. Universally
designed
> >currencies could be a good model for this concept. Shouldn't the NFB
>support
> >it?
> >
> >I am interested in any views, pro or con, on this issue.
> >-Will
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Andrews"
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List"
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:36 PM
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on
>Federal
> >Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> >
> >
> >While you won't understand, like, or accept it,
> >many of us agree with the position taken in the
> >press release. It is NFB policy arrived at by
> >discussion and vote at our national convention.
> >
> >It is like liberals and conservatives not
> >understanding each other, or how we arrived at a
> >position, you just have to accept that it is.
> >W
> >e all don't and won't agree, and I am not wrong,
> >crazy, illogical for having a position different from yours.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >At 05:31 PM 11/29/2006, you wrote:
> > >For what it's worth coming from a blind non-NFB member, I think this is
a
> > >ridiculous, counterproductive, short-sighted position for the NFB to
>take.
> > >It frustrates me that the article says that this is coming from the
>"voice
> > >of the blind". I haven't read, nor can I imagine, anything that would
> > >remotely justify an organization that advocates for the blind taking
this
> > >position.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "David Andrews"
> > >To:
> >; ; ;
> > >
> >; "" nabs-l"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nabs-l?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfbcs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbcs?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; "" nfbmo"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbmo?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >journalists"@nfbnet.org"
<"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0journalists?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; ;
> > >; ; ; ""
> > >nfb-reno-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-reno-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nfb-sf"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-sf?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; ; ""
> > >electronics-talk"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0electronics-talk?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >"" tops-2005"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tops-2005?="@nfbnet.org>;
>""
> > >rocketon"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0rocketon?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ;
> > >; "" new-horizons"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0new-horizons?="@nfbnet.org>; "" ncbys"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ncbys?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; ; ;
> > >; "" cabs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0cabs?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >nfbaz-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbaz-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; ; ""
> > >nfbf-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbf-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > ><4alabama at nfbnet.org>; "" vabs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0vabs?="@nfbnet.org>; "" mn-abs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0mn-abs?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >mi-abs"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0mi-abs?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; ""
> > >nebraska-students"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nebraska-students?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
> > >tn-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tn-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nagdu"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nagdu?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nyagdu"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nyagdu?="@nfbnet.org>; "" ag-eq"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ag-eq?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >nfb-kzoo"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-kzoo?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
> > >reader-users"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0reader-users?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nfbj"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbj?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-db"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-db?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >faith-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0faith-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
""
> > >lions-ed"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0lions-ed?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" ncme-mentoring"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ncme-mentoring?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
> > >nfbwv-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbwv-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; "" humanser"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0humanser?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; "" musictlk"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0musictlk?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nosb"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nosb?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >sportsandrec"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0sportsandrec?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >"" nobe-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nobe-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" teachvib"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0teachvib?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-web"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-web?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >la-students"@nfbnet.org"
<"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0la-students?="@nfbnet.org>;
>""
> > >nfb-cars"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-cars?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nfbkabs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbkabs?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfbkpbc"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbkpbc?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >tabs"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tabs?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >
> >
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:53 PM
> > >Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on
Federal
> > >Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> > >
> > >
> > > National Federation of the Blind Comments
> > >
> > >
> > >on Federal Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Views Effort as Dangerously Misguided
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Baltimore, Maryland (November 29, 2006): The
> > >National Federation of the Blind, the largest
> > >organization of blind persons in America and
> > >known as the voice of the nation's blind,
> > >criticized as dangerously misguided a federal
> > >court ruling saying that the design of U.S.
> > >currency discriminates against the blind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National
> > >Federation of the Blind, said: "The blind need
> > >jobs and real opportunities to earn money, not
> > >feel-good gimmicks that misinform the public
> > >about our capabilities. Blind people transact
> > >business with paper money every day. This ruling
> > >puts a roadblock in the way of solving the real
> > >problem, which is the seventy percent
> > >unemployment rate among working-age blind
> > >Americans that severely limits our access to
> > >cash. The ruling will do nothing to alleviate
> > >that situation; in fact, it seriously endangers
> > >the ability of the blind to get jobs and
> > >participate fully in society. It argues that the
> > >blind cannot handle currency or documents in the
> > >workplace and that virtually everything must be
> > >modified for the use of the blind. An employer
> > >who believes that every piece of printed material
> > >in the workplace must be specially designed so
> > >that the blind can read it will have a strong
> > >incentive not to hire a blind person."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Maurer went on to enumerate the real needs for
> > >access to information by the blind and made a
> > >distinction between those needs and the issue of
> > >identifying currency. "Access to information of
> > >all kinds, such as that contained on Internet Web
> > >sites and in the press, is certainly critical to
> > >the ability of the blind to become productive
> > >members of society. Blind students need
> > >educational materials in Braille and other
> > >alternative formats so that they can prepare for
> > >employment and ultimately earn an income for
> > >themselves and their families. Given the urgent
> > >need for access to the kind of information that
> > >is required for success in America's information
> > >economy, the matter of identifying the
> > >denominations of paper bills is of relatively little concern."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Blind people traditionally identify paper
> > >currency by folding bills of different
> > >denominations in different ways. "In reality,
> > >blind people do not routinely find that we have
> > >been short-changed," Maurer commented. Machines
> > >are readily available to identify paper money for
> > >blind people who run businesses or handle large
> > >amounts of cash. "Essentially, the United States
> > >Treasury has been ordered by the courts to come
> > >up with a solution for a nonexistent problem," Maurer said.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >The National Federation of the Blind believes
> > >that with training and opportunity, blind people
> > >can compete in the world with only minor
> > >modifications. The American Council of the
> > >Blind, which brought the lawsuit against the
> > >United States Treasury, promotes the view that
> > >the blind are unable to compete unless the world
> > >is modified dramatically and specifically for
> > >blind people, and that the blind must be made
> > >objects of care and pity rather than equal participants in society.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >John G. Par? Jr.
> > >Director of Public Relations
> > >NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> > >1800 Johnson Street
> > >Baltimore, Maryland 21230
> > >Telephone: (410) 659-9314, ext. 2371
> > >Cell phone: (410) 913-3912
> > >Fax: (410) 685-5653
> > >Email: jpare at nfb.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >blindlaw mailing list
> > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >blindlaw mailing list
> > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >blindlaw mailing list
> >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:47:25 -0600
> >From: "Steve Jacobson"
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on
> >Federal Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List"
> >Message-ID: <20061130034921.9252082C4 at cenn.mc.mpls.visi.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >Where some of us come from on this issue is that after all of the
> >money to change the currency is spent, how much will it
> >truly change our lives? I have to read the decision yet, but if all
> >my bills were completely identifiable, it would have had
> >very little effect on my life today or this week. It has much less
> >of an effect on me than does computer software that
> >doesn't work right, public transportation that could be better, and
> >many other things. This does not deal with the legal
> >aspect, but I feel sometimes that there is a segment of our
> >community that feels anything that we don't have because
> >we are blind is owed us by society. I think we have to prioritize
> >what we request from society.
> >
> >On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:31:37 -0500, Will Miller wrote:
> >
> > >For what it's worth coming from a blind non-NFB member, I think this is
a
> > >ridiculous, counterproductive, short-sighted position for the NFB to
>take.
> > >It frustrates me that the article says that this is coming from the
>"voice
> > >of the blind". I haven't read, nor can I imagine, anything that would
> > >remotely justify an organization that advocates for the blind taking
this
> > >position.
> >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "David Andrews"
> > >To:
> >; ; ;
> > >
> >; "" nabs-l"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nabs-l?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfbcs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbcs?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; "" nfbmo"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbmo?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >journalists"@nfbnet.org"
<"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0journalists?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; ;
> > >; ; ; ""
> > >nfb-reno-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-reno-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nfb-sf"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-sf?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; ; ""
> > >electronics-talk"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0electronics-talk?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >"" tops-2005"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tops-2005?="@nfbnet.org>;
>""
> > >rocketon"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0rocketon?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ;
> > >; "" new-horizons"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0new-horizons?="@nfbnet.org>; "" ncbys"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ncbys?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; ; ;
> > >; "" cabs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0cabs?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >nfbaz-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbaz-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; ; ""
> > >nfbf-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbf-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > ><4alabama at nfbnet.org>; "" vabs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0vabs?="@nfbnet.org>; "" mn-abs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0mn-abs?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >mi-abs"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0mi-abs?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; ""
> > >nebraska-students"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nebraska-students?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
> > >tn-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tn-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nagdu"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nagdu?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nyagdu"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nyagdu?="@nfbnet.org>; "" ag-eq"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ag-eq?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >nfb-kzoo"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-kzoo?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
> > >reader-users"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0reader-users?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nfbj"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbj?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-db"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-db?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >faith-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0faith-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
""
> > >lions-ed"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0lions-ed?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" ncme-mentoring"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ncme-mentoring?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
> > >nfbwv-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbwv-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; ; "" humanser"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0humanser?="@nfbnet.org>; ;
> > >; "" musictlk"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0musictlk?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nosb"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nosb?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >sportsandrec"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0sportsandrec?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >"" nobe-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nobe-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" teachvib"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0teachvib?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-web"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-web?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >la-students"@nfbnet.org"
<"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0la-students?="@nfbnet.org>;
>""
> > >nfb-cars"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-cars?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >; "" nfbkabs"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbkabs?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfbkpbc"@nfbnet.org"
> > ><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbkpbc?="@nfbnet.org>; ; ""
> > >tabs"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tabs?="@nfbnet.org>;
> > >
> >
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:53 PM
> > >Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on
Federal
> > >Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> >
> >
> > > National Federation of the Blind Comments
> >
> >
> > >on Federal Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Views Effort as Dangerously Misguided
> >
> >
> >
> > >Baltimore, Maryland (November 29, 2006): The
> > >National Federation of the Blind, the largest
> > >organization of blind persons in America and
> > >known as the voice of the nation's blind,
> > >criticized as dangerously misguided a federal
> > >court ruling saying that the design of U.S.
> > >currency discriminates against the blind.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >=== message truncated ===
> >
> >  Send instant messages to your online friends
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >blindlaw mailing list
> >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>David Andrews and white cane Harry.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

David Andrews and white cane Harry.

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw