[gui-talk] NFB on accessible money

[Will Smith]

Actually I never use NFB's cash cow Newsline.  I prefer to read from 
e-text using my computer.

And I will never understand NFB's position opposing a DVS mandate.  It 
did separate me from NFB permanently.

Will
wilsmith at iglou.com
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, David Andrews 
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>