[gui-talk] NFB on accessible money

[David Andrews]

This is not true, and you know it.  It is a form of name calling, and 
diversion.  Why seriously think about what we say when you can just 
call us mindless and crazy.

Dave

At 01:12 PM 11/30/2006, you wrote:


>I get the feeling true believers in the NFb would gladly put a big brand
>on their foreheads if the top brass told them to do so.
>
>Will
>wilsmith at iglou.com
>On Thu, 30 Nov
>2006, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm not sure how serious you are, but to some degree we are 
> getting information from stoplights indirectly, that is the 
> point.  As they exist, they do benefit us
> > along with sighted people already.  Where would you draw the 
> line?  If we have a right to everything we are missing as a result 
> of being blind, we clearly need a 24-
> > hour attendant to read, describe and drive us.  You probably 
> would not advocate that, but what are we responsible for doing as 
> blind people and what is society
> > responsible to do for us?  Why can't these issues be discussed 
> without the name-calling and emotionalism that seem to result?
> >
> > Some of the press here have portrayed blind people as being full 
> of anxiety whenever we have to deal with money.  The implication is 
> that if this isn't corrected,
> > we're going to become nervous wrecks.  This certainly doesn't 
> apply to me or to most people I know.  We are going to be better 
> served in the long run if we try to
> > figure out what we can do for ourselves and where we need 
> society's help, rather than simply saying that if sighted people 
> can see it, society owes us the exact
> > information without our needing to do much of anything.
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:25:35 -0500 (EST), Will Smith wrote:
> >
> >> So how about replacing all those red lights with stop signs?  After all
> >> sighted people can observe stop signs and take their turns at going
> >> through intersections, can't  they?
> >
> >> Will
> >> wilsmith at iglou.coom
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Steve Jacobson wrote:
> >
> >>> Allen,
> >>>
> >>> there are two things that jump out at me in what you 
> write.  Why are we overstepping our perspective to say that this 
> isn't a major problem but the ACT is not
> >>> overstepping their bouds to say that it is?
> >>>
> >>> The second thing I see in your note, although you didn't say it 
> directly, is the premise that society owes us anything that we are 
> missing because of being blind.  I
> > am
> >>> getting this from your statement that "if traffic signals that 
> are observable by people are important for everyone else, then 
> people who can't see the signal should
> >>> have a mechanism too, or why have the signal at all?"   Your 
> argument here is that if people can see it, regardless of the need, 
> we should get the same
> > information.
> >>>
> >>> To me, we are owed an equal chance to succeed.  Beyond that, I 
> believe society benefits by helping us participate in that it 
> reduces our dependence on society
> >>> and allows us to contribute.  However, it seems to me that we 
> owe society some thought as to how what it does for us benefits us 
> and how it benefits society.  I
> >>> think this is where the arguing comes in.  What are our rights 
> and what constitutes a request for assistance because it may 
> benefit society as a whole?  How can
> >>> one expect that society should spend several thousand dollars 
> putting in an accessible traffic signal on a plain old four way 
> intersection when the skills that a
> > blind
> >>> person needs to get to that intersection should be sufficient 
> to derive the required information without such a light.  Does 
> society owe us the specific information
> > that
> >>> the light has turned green as a right even if we don't need 
> it?  This is the kind of thing that keeps surfacing as differences 
> among us, and the division is obviously
> >>> pretty deep.
> >>>
> >>> Have you ever really thought about tactil warning strips?  Why 
> should such strips be installed to supposedly protect us, which is 
> an arguable premise, when such
> >>> strips might even endanger some people with particular types of 
> heels.  Why should it be thought that blind people should be 
> protected from platform edges, but it
> > is
> >>> just fine if small children or persons who are carrying 
> packages fall onto the tracks.  Why is it that huge amounts of 
> money should be spent on a questionable
> >>> solution when other solutions that would protect all riders 
> could and should be developed?  Why would we not be better off by 
> promoting safety for everybody
> > rather
> >>> than solutions that single us out?
> >>>
> >>> I respect that there are other ways of looking at some of these 
> issues.  What I find distressing is that there is generally no 
> discussion of these types of issues at
> > this
> >>> level.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:18:13 -0500, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> NFB on accessible money
> >>>> From the previous post:
> >>>> "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."
> >>>> I tend to generally agree with this, however, I for one never 
> appointed any organization or one "my voice", and while an 
> organization of the blind certainly has all
> >>> rights to voice opinions, saying that this isn't a problem for 
> blind people is overstepping their perspective.  This is just like 
> the whole tactile tiles for identifying
> > edges,
> >>> audible traffic signals, etc.  Just because some don't "need" 
> or "want" this kind of solution doesn't mean it isn't "needed" or 
> "wanted" by others.  An analysis of
> >>> traffic lights to me seems like if traffic signals that are 
> observable by people are important for everyone else, then people 
> who can't see the signal should have a
> >>> mechanism too, or why have the signal at all?  People who are 
> blind should not be provided less as a general rule, not the other 
> way around in hopes of fostering
> >>> some superman independent image.  I myself am not superman, but 
> can be pretty independent.  I can live without money changes, 
> audible traffic signals, or
> > tactile
> >>> edges, however, I can live without Braille books, audio tapes, 
> or screen readers too but why the heck should I?
> >>>> I get the feeling if ACB had filed for making the sky blue 
> that the NFB would file to change it.  This kind of bickering just 
> presents an image of a bunch of people
> >>> who can't ever be satisfied.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gui-talk mailing list
> > gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk

David Andrews and white cane Harry.