[gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
Joel Deutsch
jdeutsch at dslextreme.com
Thu Dec 7 09:36:49 CST 2006
With all due respect for Nick's formidable intelligence, and with equal sympathy for his evident distress, may I suggest that the level of diction he's drawn to when he's in turmoil and striving with all his might to address an issue insightfully might be a challenge for most readers, sighted or screen-reader-dependent, being a little on the archaically formal and complex side in terms of style and syntax. That's okay; it's just where he goes when he's feeling really serious and trying to express something with all the powers at his disposal. It's not "good," or bad," but its difficulties are real; I say this as someone who's not at all a casual student or user of language. I'm just saying, it takes closer attention and reciprocal effort to keep track of and understand than it might. And that's okay. It's a lot better than some dumb, off-point rant would be in its place, yes?
But, and this is really, really pertinent here: The use of a spell check would help a lot. A real lot. It's the frequent typos and misspellings, all uncorrected, that made following the progress of the structurally complex sentences and the rhetorical logic of this message by Jaws a painfully difficult effort for this solipsistic (not a very kind term, by the way, Nick) reader That I will have to reread it later in the day when time permits in order to be sure what Nick means to convey. So I'm saying, yo Nick, it's obvious this issue is upsetting to you,differently but equally to how it's also upsetting for me, but please take the time to spell check a message like this, if you wouldn't mind, even (especially) when you're particularly distressed and exercised, which is when this diction appears. Said with a sympathetic smile.
a
---- Original Message -----
From: Doug Lee
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
Lol, Nick, I must pause amid all this to say, you write well, and you
organize your thoughts well, but you do for a fast synth speech rate
what a row of speed bumps and a backstreet dirt road do for a
high-speed chase! Go fast enough and you'll miss more than half the
terrain; slow down a little and you'll about get lost figuring out
where it goes. And I thought *I* was bad. :-)
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:38:41AM -0600, W. Nick Dotson wrote:
I have personally chosen not to align myself with either political/advocacy organization--having participated in both during various portions of my life to
come to the conclusion that I can neither endorse "demonstration and litigation" as contrasted with "unfocused political democratic participation and
legislation" as I experience the dichotemous perspectives of the two major North American Organizations. On the other hand, I have also viewed our
community as a mere member, and from the vantage point of a "Professional Provider" of services--while inhabiting the Public Sector, and, yet again, as a
provider of technology in the Private Sector. Partially Sighted Individuals, being neither Fish nor Fowl, are stuck in a Solopcistic (spelling?) vantage point,
because they as individuals, seem to believe, no one else has experienced quite the same trauma of visual impairment as they have... Those of who are
totally blind, no matter how we arrived there, Congenitally or Advantitiously, are, from the Vantage Point of Sightlings, all sharing a Common Experience.
T'isn't true, as we come from different socio-ecconomic backgrounds, and cultural backgrounds, thus, again--we personally define our blindness Individually.
That is the strength of Advocacy/Political Organizations, that they assist us in developing a sense of solidarity of experience and goal-orientation. On the
other hand, that is the weakness of any "Organization"--it must necessarily diminish the Experience of the Individual, and Crush his/her sense of uniqueness
as it pertains to the Blindness Continuum and Experience.
I just write this as a hopefully, neutrally-valanced philosophical reference point, trying to essay the seemingly unbroachable gap between the perspectives of
"Parital" and "Total". It seems to me as a given, that those with some vision feel themselves to be the proverbial, "One eyed king" and view we "Totals"
as diminished and impoverished experientially and psychologically, as the Partially Sighted Individual is clinging fiercely to his/her self-definition as a "whole"
"fully functional" "sighted individual", and it is only with the most bitter acceptance that an "advantitously blinded" indivudual views the adaptive
technologies or strategies they are forced to adopt to maintain an acceptable level of functionality. On the other hand, many of us who are totally blinded,
have evolved a philosophy that connotes the process of life's struggles as mere "Engineering Challenges" which an individual chooses to surmount or not...
I am ending another vacation, in which in part, I have tried yet again unsuccessfully to be just a "Blind Individual" who's efforts are thwarted by other "blind
brothers and sisters" who can't differentiate between my "Professional" and personal
personas, even indicated by signature, and cavetch about my
personal perspectives to my employer. So beit! Like the partial, I can be neither fish nor fowl. But this tendency within our community to recapitulate the
worst traits of the society at large, rather than benefit from the consciousness movements from which our movement has emerged, and from which it could
benefit from others experiences breaks my heart.
Nick
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:07:09 -0600, Steve Jacobson wrote:
Joel,
First, if you look at the beginning of my note, I carefully started it out with "Joel and Others," because my comments
were not meant to be directed solely at you. Second, my feathers are ruffled, and they don't ruffle easily, but not
because we don't all agree. They are ruffled by people choosing to engage is what is little better than character
assasination with comparisons to Jim Jones and Kool-aid drinking, and write people off as just mindlessly following
leaders and being out of touch and so forth. You did not say all of these things but I have all and more during the past
week.
Third, I do not have the understanding that you might want me to have of your situation, however you are not the first
person I have known who has made the journey you have. My wife went from vision that was usable for reading large
print to none at all. Over the years, I have met and worked with persons who went from normal vision to almost blind
while they were students at BLIND Incorporated here in Minneapolis. I have two kids who both have some vision.
There vision is stable, but they and we are constantly wrestling with learning which techniques are best used when.
One of my kids could benefit from high contrast strips at the tops of stairs, but she loves going places, walking where
there isn't a path and where there will never be high contrast strips. It is clear to us that for her to depend upon such
visual warning simply means that she will make a mistake when they are not there. Certainly this does not make me an
expert on the kinds of issues you are talking about, but I've seen and experienced enough to know that my positions are
not as outlandish as some would have us believe.
My position, and I believe that of the NFB, is not as much on the money issue alone as it is on how we sort out issues.
Let's list off many of the major things we currently need without regard to who supports what or if all of us think we need
them. We have identifiable money, accessible traffic lights, better and more available training in skills associated with
low vision and blindness, accessible computer software as the technology and markets change, accessible web sites,
electronic copies of at least student texts, more braille instruction, more financial assistance to purchase access
technology, a better public transportation system, lower rate of unemployment, help training seniors about blindness and
related skills so they can live independently longer, access to printed materials and displays in home electronics and
appliances, better education of blind kids, higher SSI and SSDI payments, and on and on. Many of these items are
things we all agree on and some have been accomplished by many of us working together. But try asking the average
hard-working sighted person if they would mind paying for all of those things starting tomorrow. I would guarantee that a
certain amount of political correctness would go out the window. I believe some of these things hold more promise for
us than others, and rather than all of us asking for everything we need, that some discussion and debate take place that
addresses the various importance of issues. In some cases, a negative court ruling around one issue can negatively
affect the possible success with another issue.
You may have reasons that make you feel identifiable money is more important than I do. For my money, I would take
major guarantees of accessible software over identifiable money any day, because with out it, I'll have less money to
identify as my job could be in jepardy. Others have different priorities. The major thrust of my note is not to convince
you that I am right, only that I have a perspective that is as well thought out as is yours.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:35:11 -0800, Joel Deutsch wrote:
>Steve,
>
>Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I respect the work you do on behalf of the NFB, and I understand that you believe
each effort is made on behalf of everyone blind in the United States. Please permit me simply to think differently, from
issue to issue. As far as those damn chirping traffic lights go , I think you must be totally forgetting the millions of people
whose vision is seriously impaired in ways that may be hard for you to imagine without thinking of them as simply "blind,"
which isn't correct. If you don't understand this, I just don't know what to tell you. Age related Macular Degeneration?
Glaucoma? RP? Some, like RP people (including myself) have to make it part of their life to commit to learning new
skills of adaptation in all sorts of ways as they head down a slow road toward what the sighted world considers literal
blindness, which is about what you'd think of as light perception or less.
>
>but the rest don't even need a cane to walk down the street, unless maybe to warn others not to walk into them
because, say, their central retinal function is zapped. Do you understand what that means, physiologically and
optically? I sometimes wonder. And those people may never think of getting O and M training, let alone learning all the
blind martial arts-level skills of judging the air pressure at an intersection or all those other techniques. They just wanna
know if the light's green or red! What's so damn awful about that? And these are more people Steve, than you think.
Many more. You've just got to understand you're working within a comparatively small demographic and demanding that
everyone with what sighted people would consider meaningfully low vision but not "blindness," fall into step with your
paradigm. It isn't that simple, is all I'm almost ever trying to suggest to you at times like this. And please, do email me the
first time someone falls onto the F Train tracks on their way home to Brooklyn because of blind edge stripping. That stuff
is hard to believe.
>
>I don't know. You are offended by the Jonestown allusion? I don't blame you. But of course no one is saying such
things about anyone else in the blind community, or about the other organizations. It's just the way the NFB's rigid
vision is perceived. By a lot of people, Steve. Not all ACB people who feel themselves in organizational competition with
you. Why do you think that?
>
>I grow weary. Look, sorry you're offended. But some NFB honcho in Northern California gave me my first unfortunate
look at this forbidding world of ultra Orthodox blindness, and as I slide further along toward functional blindness, it scares
me more and more to think of that culture. And these rationales just exacerbate my mistrust and apprehension. It's all
personal, Steve. I'm no politician. I'm not involved in some hassle between you and the ACB or Diebold or some Ohio
congressman. I don't care about that stuff very much. It's the culture, and its seems frighteningly parochial to me.
>
>I'm just being honest. And with all due respect. And so forth. Honestly.
>
>From:
>mailto:steve.jacobson at visi.com Steve Jacobson
>To:
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>Sent:
>Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:47 PM
>Subject:
>Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>Joel and others,
>I agree that we need to wind this down on this list, but at the same time I am sorry that you feel as you do. The fact is
that there are two strongly-held valid
>viewpoints on several of these subjects. Given today's tendency toward political correctness, do you truly think most
of the public is going to voice the opinion that
>we should not have whatever we ask for?
>While I can see there is no point in arguing the issues, I do feel there is a point to make the case that both viewpoints
are valid and not counterintuitive or any of the
>other rather insulting characterizations that were in your note. I've been involved here in Minnesota with the approval
and establishment of voting machines, and
>there is a definite backlash in some areas. That doesn't make it wrong, but it illustrates that there are prices to pay. I
also have seen some of our web accessibility
>efforts with which you probably agree cause employers to feel that their internal web sites might not be accessible, an
issue that would not come to light unless blind
>employees are hired. In that case, one has to balance the benefit to blind people overall against the negatives of
possible reactions of specific employers. It used to
>be almost standard practice in the 1970's for agencies for the blind to purchase equipment necessary for a blind person
to do a given job. Now, the employer is
>expected to buy it. In many jobs, it will cost employers more to hire a blind employee for the same position and this is
not some counter-intuitive theory but fact. It
>puts us at a disadvantage, and people need to recognize that.
>I have personally had to negotiate with departments within my employer to establish my right to exit in emergencies
without having to have special procedures in
>place. It was thought that I should wait at my desk for help as the building burned around me. I was able to explain
the problems with that approach and show
>through my own abilities that this was not necessary, but their concern came very much from all they had heard and
read about the special needs of blind persons to
>travel about safely. I am not trying to hang my experience completely on accessible pedestrian signals, but the idea
that what we ask for cannot have a negative
>cumulate effect on our employability can only be held if one's head is in the sand.
>The division between many of us that I have discussed on other lists is this. Does society owe us anything that
minimizes our blindness as a right, or do we try to find
>ways of dealing with differences ourselves as much as possible and ask society for those things that we really need
and can't resolve ourselves. Most of us in the
>NFB fit into that second camp, and we feel that way after a lot of soul searching and a lot of thought. The Jim Jones
crap is simply a way of discrediting without
>having to participate in meaningful discussion.
>Finally, until we recognize that we are not all going to see things in the same light and that differences of opinion are
sometimes legitimate, there is little hope of ever
>finding common ground. I have seen two references to Jim Jones and "Don't Drink the Kool-Aid," both aimed at us.
Maybe it has happened elsewhere, but I have
>seen nobody using similar analogies directed at those who favor some of the issues that you have mentioned on our
lists. I understand some of the logic of wanting
>tactile money. However, I am uncomfortable with the notion that we are owed tactile money as a right without looking
at the true impact and other possible options
>such as help with paying for money identifiers. I am uncomfortable with spending millions to put tactile warning strips on
subway platforms "for the blind" which have
>limited effectiveness and might even be dangerous in some situations when we should be addressing, as a society,
making platforms more safe for everyone,
>especially small kids. A broader view of that issue would be better for everyone including us. I do not believe that
society should have to pay several thousand
>dollars an intersection to put up a light so that some of us can say we have the same information as do sighted people
when there are already reliable methods of
>deducing that information. I do believe that putting up such signals where there is a clear demonstration of need is all
right as has been expressed in NFB
>resolutions. We live in complex times, and people who think the answers are simple are fooling themselves. We will
be far better off if we understand and try to
>respect one another's positions even when we do not agree with them.
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:45:20 -0800, Joel Deutsch wrote:
>>Why do you guys keep arguing about this? Really, this NFB line about how it's either gonna be more job opportunities
for the blind and or the useless bon bon of
>nice money you can feel, this is what people ought to be debating, and I mean literally debating. Someone ought to
make an honest attempt to show some sort of
>data that prove that when the blind are given chirping traffic lights, the blind employment rate in that community falls.
I'm only being slightly facetious. This is what
>the implication of the position sounds like to me.
>>
>>As for the "something for nothing" riff, this is getting into Jim Jones territory. What on earth does that mean? You're a
citizen, you pay the taxes of the country,
>you participate in civic life by voting, etc., and there isn't anything in that about getting anything for nothing, for god's
sake. What kind of wacko sadistic boot camp
>is this thing, anyway? That sounds crazy to most people, do you guys know that? I have mostly sighted friends, all
professional, educated people, and they don't
>think anything like what you people insist society thinks about this false zero-sum opposition, as if it's either tactile
subway strips or jobs, or trying to get something for
>nothing. You know, if you are sighted and go into a dark room and yell, "Hey, would someone mind turning on the
lights?" no one yells "do it yourself, you sissy
>commie, you people who come in here when the lights are off are always asking for something for nothing. Grow up.
>>
>>This is so exasperating. I've never heard more counterintuitive and suspect reasoning than what I keep hearing is
behind NFB positions like this. It's really
>unnerving, speaking only for myself.
>>
>>I wish I could be more polite about it, because I've been on this list a long time and appreciate its hospitality and its
utility. It's been a friendly list to subscribe to,
>and a very helpful one, and I appreciate the NFB sponsoring it and Dave managing it. Sincerely, I do. But this stuff
makes people crazier than I think you
>imagine. There's something very weird about it. My references to the NFB Kool aid, or Jim Jones, aren't arbitrary, just
hyperbolic. Arghh.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From:
>>mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov Baracco, Andrew W
>>To:
>>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>>Sent:
>>Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:25 PM
>>Subject:
>>Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>But, John, if your figures are correct about the number of visually
>>impaired persons in the U. S. , and let's, for the sake of argument, say
>>that the NFB has 50,000 members, even though I think that this figure is
>>very much overstated, this would mean that at best, the NFB represents
>>somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the blind and visually impaired
>>population. This hardly constitutes a majority, or even a significant
>>minority. How many members the ACB has is irrelevent to this
>>discussion, because the ACB is not implying that they speak for all
>>blind persons. The truth is that the vast majority of blind persons
>>consider themselves to be independent thinkers and do not feel that
>>belonging to a membership organization of blind persons is worth their
>>time and money, and doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of
>>things.
>>Andy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>On Behalf Of John Brown
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:30 AM
>>To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>I am getting a bit frustrated with people spouting off who simply don't
>>know what they are talking about. The legally blind population is
>>approximately
>>2 million and the number of those who have a visual problem that affects
>>their daily lives is approximately ten million. One measure of NFB ACB
>>representation and support is that a national NFB convention is
>>approximately 3 times the size of an ACB convention. Check these facts
>>out for yourself if you do not believe me. I would much rather have a
>>job than feelable money, wouldn't you? Our biggest problem I think is
>>that too many blind folk want and expect something for nothing. Please,
>>lets get back to talking about technology.
>>John Brown
>>Nashville Tennessee
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Baracco, Andrew W" < mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov
>mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov Andrew.Baracco at va.gov
>>>
>>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>> The AFB recently estimated the number of blind persons living in the
>>U.
>>> S. as 10 million. For at least the last 30 years, the NFB has stated
>>> that they have 50,000 members. Assuming this to be true, and not an
>>> overstatement, as it probably is, the NFB represents, at most, only
>>> one half of one percent of the blind population. This hardly
>>> constitutes a majority, or even a significant minority. Even if the
>>> blind population was overestimated, and is more like 2 million, which
>>> is also an estimate I have seen, and again assuming that 50,000 figure
>>> for NFB membership, this only constitutes 2.5 per cent. Still nothing
>>> like a majority or significant number. This hardly constitutes the
>>> voice of the nation's blind. And I do not think that equating the NFB
>>> to the government of the United States is an analogy that holds water
>>either.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Seville Allen
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:39 AM
>>> To: 'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>>
>>> While you didn't appoint, or better possibly say you didn't elect, any
>>> blind organization to speak for you, you are spoken for just by the
>>> fact that, collectively, blind people are heard through a choir of
>>> voices or an elected representative of a blind organization speaking.
>>> This is the same for an American citizen who doesn't vote. He may not
>>> have voted for our current American administration, but whether or not
>>> he did, the fact is that the "elected leadership" speaks for the whole
>>> organization of citizens.
>>> So whether or not we join a blindness organization or an American
>>> political party, we will be spoken for by someone who is known as the
>>> leader by the system's definition.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:18 AM
>>> To: mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: [gui-talk] 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
>>> mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>_______________________________________________
>>gui-talk mailing list
>>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>_______________________________________________
>>gui-talk mailing list
>>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>--
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.11/575 - Release Date: 12/6/2006 12:22 PM
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.11/575 - Release Date: 12/6/2006 12:22 PM
_______________________________________________
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
--
Doug Lee dgl at dlee.org
SSB + BART Group doug.lee at ssbbartgroup.com http://www.ssbbartgroup.com
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!') but rather 'hmm....
that's funny...'" -- Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.11/575 - Release Date: 12/6/2006 12:22 PM
-------------- next part --------------
With all due respect for Nick's formidable intelligence, and with equal sympathy for
his evident distress, may I suggest that the level of diction he's drawn to when he's in turmoil and striving with all his might to address an issue insightfully might be a challenge for most readers, sighted or screen-reader-dependent, being a little on the archaically formal and complex side in terms of style and syntax. That's okay; it's just where he goes when he's feeling really serious and trying to express something with all the powers at his disposal. It's not "good," or bad," but its difficulties are real; I say this as someone who's not at all a casual student or user of language. I'm just saying, it takes closer attention and reciprocal effort to keep track of and understand than it might. And that's okay. It's a lot better than some dumb, off-point rant would be in its place, yes?
But, and this is really, really pertinent here: The use of a spell check would help a lot. A real lot. It's the frequent typos and misspellings, all uncorrected, that made following the progress of the structurally complex sentences and the rhetorical logic of this message by Jaws a painfully difficult effort for this solipsistic (not a very kind term, by the way, Nick) reader That I will have to reread it later in the day when time permits in order to be sure what Nick means to convey. So I'm saying, yo Nick, it's obvious this issue is upsetting to you,differently but equally to how it's also upsetting for me, but please take the time to spell check a message like this, if you wouldn't mind, even (especially) when you're particularly distressed and exercised, which is when this diction appears. Said with a sympathetic smile.
a
---- Original Message -----
From:
mailto:dgl at dlee.org Doug Lee
To:
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent:
Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:00 AM
Subject:
Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
Lol, Nick, I must pause amid all this to say, you write well, and you
organize your thoughts well, but you do for a fast synth speech rate
what a row of speed bumps and a backstreet dirt road do for a
high-speed chase! Go fast enough and you'll miss more than half the
terrain; slow down a little and you'll about get lost figuring out
where it goes. And I thought *I* was bad. :-)
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:38:41AM -0600, W. Nick Dotson wrote:
I have personally chosen not to align myself with either political/advocacy organization--having participated in both during various portions of my life to
come to the conclusion that I can neither endorse "demonstration and litigation" as contrasted with "unfocused political democratic participation and
legislation" as I experience the dichotemous perspectives of the two major North American Organizations. On the other hand, I have also viewed our
community as a mere member, and from the vantage point of a "Professional Provider" of services--while inhabiting the Public Sector, and, yet again, as a
provider of technology in the Private Sector. Partially Sighted Individuals, being neither Fish nor Fowl, are stuck in a Solopcistic (spelling?) vantage point,
because they as individuals, seem to believe, no one else has experienced quite the same trauma of visual impairment as they have... Those of who are
totally blind, no matter how we arrived there, Congenitally or Advantitiously, are, from the Vantage Point of Sightlings, all sharing a Common Experience.
T'isn't true, as we come from different socio-ecconomic backgrounds, and cultural backgrounds, thus, again--we personally define our blindness Individually.
That is the strength of Advocacy/Political Organizations, that they assist us in developing a sense of solidarity of experience and goal-orientation. On the
other hand, that is the weakness of any "Organization"--it must necessarily diminish the Experience of the Individual, and Crush his/her sense of uniqueness
as it pertains to the Blindness Continuum and Experience.
I just write this as a hopefully, neutrally-valanced philosophical reference point, trying to essay the seemingly unbroachable gap between the perspectives of
"Parital" and "Total". It seems to me as a given, that those with some vision feel themselves to be the proverbial, "One eyed king" and view we "Totals"
as diminished and impoverished experientially and psychologically, as the Partially Sighted Individual is clinging fiercely to his/her self-definition as a "whole"
"fully functional" "sighted individual", and it is only with the most bitter acceptance that an "advantitously blinded" indivudual views the adaptive
technologies or strategies they are forced to adopt to maintain an acceptable level of functionality. On the other hand, many of us who are totally blinded,
have evolved a philosophy that connotes the process of life's struggles as mere "Engineering Challenges" which an individual chooses to surmount or not...
I am ending another vacation, in which in part, I have tried yet again unsuccessfully to be just a "Blind Individual" who's efforts are thwarted by other "blind
brothers and sisters" who can't differentiate between my "Professional" and personal
personas, even indicated by signature, and cavetch about my
personal perspectives to my employer. So beit! Like the partial, I can be neither fish nor fowl. But this tendency within our community to recapitulate the
worst traits of the society at large, rather than benefit from the consciousness movements from which our movement has emerged, and from which it could
benefit from others experiences breaks my heart.
Nick
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:07:09 -0600, Steve Jacobson wrote:
Joel,
First, if you look at the beginning of my note, I carefully started it out with "Joel and Others," because my comments
were not meant to be directed solely at you. Second, my feathers are ruffled, and they don't ruffle easily, but not
because we don't all agree. They are ruffled by people choosing to engage is what is little better than character
assasination with comparisons to Jim Jones and Kool-aid drinking, and write people off as just mindlessly following
leaders and being out of touch and so forth. You did not say all of these things but I have all and more during the past
week.
Third, I do not have the understanding that you might want me to have of your situation, however you are not the first
person I have known who has made the journey you have. My wife went from vision that was usable for reading large
print to none at all. Over the years, I have met and worked with persons who went from normal vision to almost blind
while they were students at BLIND Incorporated here in Minneapolis. I have two kids who both have some vision.
There vision is stable, but they and we are constantly wrestling with learning which techniques are best used when.
One of my kids could benefit from high contrast strips at the tops of stairs, but she loves going places, walking where
there isn't a path and where there will never be high contrast strips. It is clear to us that for her to depend upon such
visual warning simply means that she will make a mistake when they are not there. Certainly this does not make me an
expert on the kinds of issues you are talking about, but I've seen and experienced enough to know that my positions are
not as outlandish as some would have us believe.
My position, and I believe that of the NFB, is not as much on the money issue alone as it is on how we sort out issues.
Let's list off many of the major things we currently need without regard to who supports what or if all of us think we need
them. We have identifiable money, accessible traffic lights, better and more available training in skills associated with
low vision and blindness, accessible computer software as the technology and markets change, accessible web sites,
electronic copies of at least student texts, more braille instruction, more financial assistance to purchase access
technology, a better public transportation system, lower rate of unemployment, help training seniors about blindness and
related skills so they can live independently longer, access to printed materials and displays in home electronics and
appliances, better education of blind kids, higher SSI and SSDI payments, and on and on. Many of these items are
things we all agree on and some have been accomplished by many of us working together. But try asking the average
hard-working sighted person if they would mind paying for all of those things starting tomorrow. I would guarantee that a
certain amount of political correctness would go out the window. I believe some of these things hold more promise for
us than others, and rather than all of us asking for everything we need, that some discussion and debate take place that
addresses the various importance of issues. In some cases, a negative court ruling around one issue can negatively
affect the possible success with another issue.
You may have reasons that make you feel identifiable money is more important than I do. For my money, I would take
major guarantees of accessible software over identifiable money any day, because with out it, I'll have less money to
identify as my job could be in jepardy. Others have different priorities. The major thrust of my note is not to convince
you that I am right, only that I have a perspective that is as well thought out as is yours.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:35:11 -0800, Joel Deutsch wrote:
>Steve,
>
>Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I respect the work you do on behalf of the NFB, and I understand that you believe
each effort is made on behalf of everyone blind in the United States. Please permit me simply to think differently, from
issue to issue. As far as those damn chirping traffic lights go , I think you must be totally forgetting the millions of people
whose vision is seriously impaired in ways that may be hard for you to imagine without thinking of them as simply "blind,"
which isn't correct. If you don't understand this, I just don't know what to tell you. Age related Macular Degeneration?
Glaucoma? RP? Some, like RP people (including myself) have to make it part of their life to commit to learning new
skills of adaptation in all sorts of ways as they head down a slow road toward what the sighted world considers literal
blindness, which is about what you'd think of as light perception or less.
>
>but the rest don't even need a cane to walk down the street, unless maybe to warn others not to walk into them
because, say, their central retinal function is zapped. Do you understand what that means, physiologically and
optically? I sometimes wonder. And those people may never think of getting O and M training, let alone learning all the
blind martial arts-level skills of judging the air pressure at an intersection or all those other techniques. They just wanna
know if the light's green or red! What's so damn awful about that? And these are more people Steve, than you think.
Many more. You've just got to understand you're working within a comparatively small demographic and demanding that
everyone with what sighted people would consider meaningfully low vision but not "blindness," fall into step with your
paradigm. It isn't that simple, is all I'm almost ever trying to suggest to you at times like this. And please, do email me the
first time someone falls onto the F Train tracks on their way home to Brooklyn because of blind edge stripping. That stuff
is hard to believe.
>
>I don't know. You are offended by the Jonestown allusion? I don't blame you. But of course no one is saying such
things about anyone else in the blind community, or about the other organizations. It's just the way the NFB's rigid
vision is perceived. By a lot of people, Steve. Not all ACB people who feel themselves in organizational competition with
you. Why do you think that?
>
>I grow weary. Look, sorry you're offended. But some NFB honcho in Northern California gave me my first unfortunate
look at this forbidding world of ultra Orthodox blindness, and as I slide further along toward functional blindness, it scares
me more and more to think of that culture. And these rationales just exacerbate my mistrust and apprehension. It's all
personal, Steve. I'm no politician. I'm not involved in some hassle between you and the ACB or Diebold or some Ohio
congressman. I don't care about that stuff very much. It's the culture, and its seems frighteningly parochial to me.
>
>I'm just being honest. And with all due respect. And so forth. Honestly.
>
>From:
>mailto:steve.jacobson at visi.com Steve Jacobson
>To:
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>Sent:
>Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:47 PM
>Subject:
>Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>Joel and others,
>I agree that we need to wind this down on this list, but at the same time I am sorry that you feel as you do. The fact is
that there are two strongly-held valid
>viewpoints on several of these subjects. Given today's tendency toward political correctness, do you truly think most
of the public is going to voice the opinion that
>we should not have whatever we ask for?
>While I can see there is no point in arguing the issues, I do feel there is a point to make the case that both viewpoints
are valid and not counterintuitive or any of the
>other rather insulting characterizations that were in your note. I've been involved here in Minnesota with the approval
and establishment of voting machines, and
>there is a definite backlash in some areas. That doesn't make it wrong, but it illustrates that there are prices to pay. I
also have seen some of our web accessibility
>efforts with which you probably agree cause employers to feel that their internal web sites might not be accessible, an
issue that would not come to light unless blind
>employees are hired. In that case, one has to balance the benefit to blind people overall against the negatives of
possible reactions of specific employers. It used to
>be almost standard practice in the 1970's for agencies for the blind to purchase equipment necessary for a blind person
to do a given job. Now, the employer is
>expected to buy it. In many jobs, it will cost employers more to hire a blind employee for the same position and this is
not some counter-intuitive theory but fact. It
>puts us at a disadvantage, and people need to recognize that.
>I have personally had to negotiate with departments within my employer to establish my right to exit in emergencies
without having to have special procedures in
>place. It was thought that I should wait at my desk for help as the building burned around me. I was able to explain
the problems with that approach and show
>through my own abilities that this was not necessary, but their concern came very much from all they had heard and
read about the special needs of blind persons to
>travel about safely. I am not trying to hang my experience completely on accessible pedestrian signals, but the idea
that what we ask for cannot have a negative
>cumulate effect on our employability can only be held if one's head is in the sand.
>The division between many of us that I have discussed on other lists is this. Does society owe us anything that
minimizes our blindness as a right, or do we try to find
>ways of dealing with differences ourselves as much as possible and ask society for those things that we really need
and can't resolve ourselves. Most of us in the
>NFB fit into that second camp, and we feel that way after a lot of soul searching and a lot of thought. The Jim Jones
crap is simply a way of discrediting without
>having to participate in meaningful discussion.
>Finally, until we recognize that we are not all going to see things in the same light and that differences of opinion are
sometimes legitimate, there is little hope of ever
>finding common ground. I have seen two references to Jim Jones and "Don't Drink the Kool-Aid," both aimed at us.
Maybe it has happened elsewhere, but I have
>seen nobody using similar analogies directed at those who favor some of the issues that you have mentioned on our
lists. I understand some of the logic of wanting
>tactile money. However, I am uncomfortable with the notion that we are owed tactile money as a right without looking
at the true impact and other possible options
>such as help with paying for money identifiers. I am uncomfortable with spending millions to put tactile warning strips on
subway platforms "for the blind" which have
>limited effectiveness and might even be dangerous in some situations when we should be addressing, as a society,
making platforms more safe for everyone,
>especially small kids. A broader view of that issue would be better for everyone including us. I do not believe that
society should have to pay several thousand
>dollars an intersection to put up a light so that some of us can say we have the same information as do sighted people
when there are already reliable methods of
>deducing that information. I do believe that putting up such signals where there is a clear demonstration of need is all
right as has been expressed in NFB
>resolutions. We live in complex times, and people who think the answers are simple are fooling themselves. We will
be far better off if we understand and try to
>respect one another's positions even when we do not agree with them.
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:45:20 -0800, Joel Deutsch wrote:
>>Why do you guys keep arguing about this? Really, this NFB line about how it's either gonna be more job opportunities
for the blind and or the useless bon bon of
>nice money you can feel, this is what people ought to be debating, and I mean literally debating. Someone ought to
make an honest attempt to show some sort of
>data that prove that when the blind are given chirping traffic lights, the blind employment rate in that community falls.
I'm only being slightly facetious. This is what
>the implication of the position sounds like to me.
>>
>>As for the "something for nothing" riff, this is getting into Jim Jones territory. What on earth does that mean? You're a
citizen, you pay the taxes of the country,
>you participate in civic life by voting, etc., and there isn't anything in that about getting anything for nothing, for god's
sake. What kind of wacko sadistic boot camp
>is this thing, anyway? That sounds crazy to most people, do you guys know that? I have mostly sighted friends, all
professional, educated people, and they don't
>think anything like what you people insist society thinks about this false zero-sum opposition, as if it's either tactile
subway strips or jobs, or trying to get something for
>nothing. You know, if you are sighted and go into a dark room and yell, "Hey, would someone mind turning on the
lights?" no one yells "do it yourself, you sissy
>commie, you people who come in here when the lights are off are always asking for something for nothing. Grow up.
>>
>>This is so exasperating. I've never heard more counterintuitive and suspect reasoning than what I keep hearing is
behind NFB positions like this. It's really
>unnerving, speaking only for myself.
>>
>>I wish I could be more polite about it, because I've been on this list a long time and appreciate its hospitality and its
utility. It's been a friendly list to subscribe to,
>and a very helpful one, and I appreciate the NFB sponsoring it and Dave managing it. Sincerely, I do. But this stuff
makes people crazier than I think you
>imagine. There's something very weird about it. My references to the NFB Kool aid, or Jim Jones, aren't arbitrary, just
hyperbolic. Arghh.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From:
>>mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov Baracco, Andrew W
>>To:
>>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>>Sent:
>>Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:25 PM
>>Subject:
>>Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>But, John, if your figures are correct about the number of visually
>>impaired persons in the U. S. , and let's, for the sake of argument, say
>>that the NFB has 50,000 members, even though I think that this figure is
>>very much overstated, this would mean that at best, the NFB represents
>>somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the blind and visually impaired
>>population. This hardly constitutes a majority, or even a significant
>>minority. How many members the ACB has is irrelevent to this
>>discussion, because the ACB is not implying that they speak for all
>>blind persons. The truth is that the vast majority of blind persons
>>consider themselves to be independent thinkers and do not feel that
>>belonging to a membership organization of blind persons is worth their
>>time and money, and doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of
>>things.
>>Andy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>On Behalf Of John Brown
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:30 AM
>>To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>I am getting a bit frustrated with people spouting off who simply don't
>>know what they are talking about. The legally blind population is
>>approximately
>>2 million and the number of those who have a visual problem that affects
>>their daily lives is approximately ten million. One measure of NFB ACB
>>representation and support is that a national NFB convention is
>>approximately 3 times the size of an ACB convention. Check these facts
>>out for yourself if you do not believe me. I would much rather have a
>>job than feelable money, wouldn't you? Our biggest problem I think is
>>that too many blind folk want and expect something for nothing. Please,
>>lets get back to talking about technology.
>>John Brown
>>Nashville Tennessee
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Baracco, Andrew W" < mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov
mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov
>mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov mailto:Andrew.Baracco at va.gov Andrew.Baracco at va.gov
>>>
>>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>> The AFB recently estimated the number of blind persons living in the
>>U.
>>> S. as 10 million. For at least the last 30 years, the NFB has stated
>>> that they have 50,000 members. Assuming this to be true, and not an
>>> overstatement, as it probably is, the NFB represents, at most, only
>>> one half of one percent of the blind population. This hardly
>>> constitutes a majority, or even a significant minority. Even if the
>>> blind population was overestimated, and is more like 2 million, which
>>> is also an estimate I have seen, and again assuming that 50,000 figure
>>> for NFB membership, this only constitutes 2.5 per cent. Still nothing
>>> like a majority or significant number. This hardly constitutes the
>>> voice of the nation's blind. And I do not think that equating the NFB
>>> to the government of the United States is an analogy that holds water
>>either.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Seville Allen
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:39 AM
>>> To: 'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money
>>>
>>> While you didn't appoint, or better possibly say you didn't elect, any
>>> blind organization to speak for you, you are spoken for just by the
>>> fact that, collectively, blind people are heard through a choir of
>>> voices or an elected representative of a blind organization speaking.
>>> This is the same for an American citizen who doesn't vote. He may not
>>> have voted for our current American administration, but whether or not
>>> he did, the fact is that the "elected leadership" speaks for the whole
>>> organization of citizens.
>>> So whether or not we join a blindness organization or an American
>>> political party, we will be spoken for by someone who is known as the
>>> leader by the system's definition.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:18 AM
>>> To: mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: [gui-talk] 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
>>> mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>_______________________________________________
>>gui-talk mailing list
>>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>_______________________________________________
>>gui-talk mailing list
>>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>--
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.11/575 - Release Date: 12/6/2006 12:22 PM
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.11/575 - Release Date: 12/6/2006 12:22 PM
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--
Doug Lee mailto:dgl at dlee.org dgl at dlee.org
SSB + BART Group mailto:doug.lee at ssbbartgroup.com doug.lee at ssbbartgroup.com
http://www.ssbbartgroup.com http://www.ssbbartgroup.com
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!') but rather 'hmm....
that's funny...'" -- Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.11/575 - Release Date: 12/6/2006 12:22 PM
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list