[gui-talk] Use the B word!
Ankers, Dave (UK)
Dave.Ankers at baesystems.com
Thu May 24 10:28:01 CDT 2007
How about partially blinded by whatever and totally blind, use the B
word and to hell with all that politically correct crap.
Dave
Hi. It would be okay to use a phrase like vision impaired, but only as
part of an adjectival couple, and with a hyphen. A vision-impaired man.
To say "I'm vision impaired" is not going to sound linguistically
sensible to most people. The other thing is that "visually impaired"
does not mean or imply what is said below. That would be "visibly
impaired." Hope this helps.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loy" <loyrg2845 at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
A more proper term would be vision impaired. Visually impaired implies
that we look impaired. Impaired meaning diminished in strength.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George and Pamela Dominguez" <geodom at optonline.net>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Well, I guess from what you say, you are truly "visually impaired".
Lots of times, when we are called that, we have no vision to impair.
Pam.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Deutsch" <jdeutsch at dslextreme.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
> yeah, Nick, I'm laughing. But before you make fun of sightlings who
are
too
> eager to be polite (or "politically correct," as they say now), bear
in
mind
> that in the blind and low vision community people haggle a lot, with
very
> ideological fervor, over that very same language.
>
> Not long ago, I think it was on this list that I referred to myself in
> passing as visually impaired. For background, I have a hereditary
retinal
> degeneration that has so far cost me my central vision (thus Jaws and
audio
> literature, etc.) and muddles up areas of my remaining mid-peripheral
and
> far peripheral vision. To a normally sighted person, this would be, as
it
is
> for me, a real and very sorrowful loss, the more so because it's
progressive
> and doesn't stop. But in the meantime, I still do nearly everything in
my
> daily practical life by sight, except where the acuity that
central/macular
> vision would provide would be necessary for seeing something properly.
> Again, to a fully sighted person, this would be a horrible freakout if
they
> woke up in this condition one morning. But it simply isn't literal
> blindness. A serious, life-changing impairment at this point, yes.
> Blindness, no. Not quite yet.
>
> But soon after I used that phrase here, someone on the list chimed in
with
a
> post about something in that thread or another, and put sarcastic
quotation
> marks around "visually impaired," as if to say that's a lying
euphemism. I
> have heard this before, and it's purely political, and never comes
from
> anywhere but someone in the NFB. I don't want to go into my thoughts
about
> the psychological and political underpinnings of this posture, but
it's
very
> questionable as a rational position. To put it mildly. And, just to at
least
> tip my hat to part of what's behind the objection, no, I'm not
literally
in
> psychological denial about losing my sight. Not at all. I'm talking
about
> the meanings of words.
>
> Well, never mind. I had meant not to say anything about that little
> incident, but I se I couldn't restrain myself. No offense meant toward
any
> of my good friends here, please understand. it's just about the words.
You
> don't mess with words. Read George Orwell.
>
> Speaking of words, a group of my essays and stories that have appeared
> mostly in the Los Angeles times Magazine, as well as a few others, are
now
> gathered on my own Web site whose URL I'll give below. If anyone is
> interested to see a record of this life that I can't express at all
> adequately in what I contribute here in this venue. Some will be able
to
> relate, others may not be for lack of prior visual experience to draw
upon.
> but I think anyone will be able to see that I'm someone who's careful
with
> his thoughts and respectful of language and its meanings.
>
> Joel
>
> Reports from a fading world, fiction from the visible one:
> http://www.joeldeutsch.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W. Nick Dotson" <nickdotson at bellsouth.net>
> To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
>
> Naw, the oh so "sensitive" actually "intimidated" "sightling" will
say,
> "non-sighted? Unsighted? Oh, I'm so embarrassed, what should I call
your
> people"/
>
> Nick
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:27:43 -0700, Joel Deutsch wrote:
>
> I just want to mention that there are quite a lot of foolish white
people
> these days who have taken up the affectation of using the "n" word
> specifically to pretend that they're as hip as the African American
rap
> stars who model that behavior. and not just suburban white kids in
baggies,
> pretending to be hip black dudes. I even know of an instance, the
story
> told
> in a recent article I can't remember where I read it, where a very
upscale
> entertainment industry business guy here in West Los Angeles
("Hollywood,"
> as America thinks of it, off by a couple of miles) who got into
calling
his
> black attorney "my n." and that sort of thing, putting the attorney
in a
> very awkward position unless he felt safe with this law firm about
giving
> this idiot a firm dressing-down, a little education about how it's
not
hip
> at all to say if you're white, and doesn't imply "man I'm so far from
an
> old-fashioned bigot that I can use that word with you just like we be
> family, my man," or something like that. Naturally, reading that, I
thought
> just what Albert says. I wanted to call that agent or studio
executive
and
> say, "Hey, man, why don't you just get in your nice Lexus or Porsche
or
> whatever and drive down to Florence and Normandie, park and go up to
the
> first black dude you see on the street and start talking like that,
and
see
> what happens."
>
> Now on the other hand, I've never in my life heard a sighted person
refer
> to
> anyone blind as a blink, and I know that sighted people in America
have
no
> idea what that word means or where it's used, by whom. They never
refer
to
> the blind as anything but the blind, as a class, or to a blind
individual
> as
> anything but a blind person. So this blink thing you're discussing
has
the
> advantage or disadvantage of being entirely a community issue, a
family
> affair. You don't ever have to worry that if you get a job at a nice
> company, complete with a computer with Jaws, an OCR program and
scanner,
> and
> all sorts of accessibility adjustments, that your supervisor or the
person
> in the next cubicle is ever gonna come up to you and say, "Yo
blinkster!
My
> man! Wanna go to lunch?" Just ain't gonna happen.
>
> Carry on.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "albert griffith" <albertpgriffith at hotmail.com>
> To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
>
> Ok. come to my neighborhood and begin hurling racial epithets at
people
> and
> as you're being beaten to the ground, explain, "I'm just using
words!"
> "why
> do you have a problem with that?" grin Words are more than just
> vibrations
> or it wouldn't mean anything whether a person said they loved or
hated
you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Don Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:38 PM
> To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
> Why? PC is for the whiners among us. After 60 years words can be a
> problem, only if we let it or if we allow others to convince us
they're a
> problem.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon C. Pierson" <jpierson at gigo.com>
> To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
>
> Using the word "blinks" is as out-dated as using the n-bomb to refer
to
> blacks, get a slightly P.C. life.
>
>
>
>
> Jon C. Pierson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Don Moore
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:03 PM
> To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
> Sounds like a pile of crap to me, unless people think that blinks are
too
> stupid to know the difference. Personally I own both products and
knew
it
> when I bought them. Is FS also going to go after Sean Hannity for
using
> "Let Freedom Ring" as his theme? Seems like rather a stretch to
claim
> trademark violation and more like harassment of the small guy by the
big
> guy
> on the block. Was this brainstorm concocted by the bunch that bought
FS
> that doesn't think much of freedom anyway? Just wondering.
>
> Makes you wonder how some ambulance chasers can sleep at night!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Mosen" <jmosen at mosen.org>
> To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:50 PM
> Subject: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
>
> Last week, Freedom Scientific, Inc. filed suit against Serotek
Corporation
> for trademark infringement with respect to the FreedomBox range of
> products.
> Since then, the matter has been discussed at length on some
> blindness-related blogs and e-mail lists. I'd like by way of this
message
> to
> clarify what I view as some of the objectives of the suit. I am a
Vice
> President at Freedom Scientific, and am extremely proud to work
there.
> However writing this message is my own initiative as a former
technology
> journalist. My aim in doing this is that people at least get a chance
to
> consider facts over rhetoric.
>
> Firstly, let me talk a little about trademark law. A trademark's
purpose
is
> to exclusively identify a source and origin of products. Importantly,
a
> trademark only applies to a certain range of goods or services. One
of
the
> questions I have seen on e-mail lists is, "how can Freedom Scientific
claim
> to own the word Freedom." By taking this action, Freedom Scientific
is
not
> seeking to do this. Rather, Freedom Scientific is simply enforcing
the
> Freedom Scientific trademark, which it owns for certain goods.
Freedom
> Scientific has invested to establish its trademarks and is only
seeking
to
> enforce these valuable rights. Freedom Scientific has the legal
right,
and
> the obligation to its customers and shareholders, to protect the use
of
its
> trademark in the context of assistive technology. The concept of
using
> common words in trademarks is common - for example the use of the
word
> Apple
> to describe a computer company. As is well known through recent news
> stories, Apple is quite entitled to own this name in the context of
> computer
> hardware and software products. It does not, of course, mean that
Apple
has
> any rights to the name when you eat a piece of fruit. Trademarks can
> co-exist where there is no similarity between the businesses. For
example,
> Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets are trademarks, but there is no
issue
> there
> because the businesses' purposes are totally different and there is
no
room
> for confusion. Freedom Scientific is confident that its trademark
rights
> will be upheld. The broadening of scope of the FreedomBox products to
> include products like FreedomBox System Access (FBSA) offering access
to
> mainstream applications only exacerbates the infringement.
>
> Trademarks are not some abstract thing. They are a company's
reputation.
> They are legal property, and you can't simply take someone's property
> without their consent.
>
> Secondly, I'd like to turn to the question, "why now." All sorts of
bizarre
> speculation have been put forward as to the timing of this suit.
Freedom
> Scientific made Serotek well aware of its position on this matter,
but
> unfortunately Serotek was unwilling to negotiate a settlement to this
> matter. No one likes having to go to court, but if you genuinely
believe
> your property rights are being trampled upon, in the end there is no
choice
> but to do so if you are unable to get a resolution any other way.
>
> Thirdly, it has been said that Freedom Scientific is giving the blind
> community no credit by taking this action, and that everyone knows
the
> difference between the two product lines. Rest assured, this is most
> certainly not the case. I can tell you that Freedom Scientific has
been
> contacted by Serotek customers seeking technical support, or even
wanting
> to
> buy a Serotek product. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion.
>
> Fourthly, a petition has been established by the hosts of ACB Radio's
Main
> Menu, calling itself the Save Serotek petition. The grossly
misleading
name
> of this petition implies that somehow Freedom Scientific's objective
is
to
> put Serotek out of business. As a result of the sensationalist name,
many
> commenters to the Petition have made comments to this effect. All
Freedom
> Scientific is seeking to do is protect its property and to seek
appropriate
> compensation for the unlawful use of it.
>
> The objective here is not to put Serotek out of business. 2007 has
already
> seen great innovation from Freedom Scientific and there's plenty more
to
> come. Honest competition inspires excellence and is good news for the
> customer. But I stress the word "honest." Yes, many people in
assistive
> technology are motivated by a strong sense of purpose and commitment
to
> making a difference. But these companies are still commercial
entities,
who
> have every right to use the legal system to protect their property if
they
> think they need to, just as you have a right to use the legal system
if
> someone breaks into your house and takes something belonging to you
>
> In closing, I hope that those genuinely interested in the facts of
this
> matter will take the time to read up on trademark case law, but most
> importantly, will let the judicial process take its course. It occurs
to
me
> that if Freedom Scientific has got it as wrong as a few people claim,
then
> what do they have to fear? A jury will dismiss the case. I doubt that
will
> happen though. If the law has been broken as I believe it has, then
Freedom
> Scientific is quite entitled to redress.
>
> My hope is that sanity prevails and that Serotek has both the courage
and
> the decency to brand its products in a fashion that wasn't already
being
> used in this industry. I think they would gain a lot of respect from
the
> blind community for acting honourably. Fair competition is not too
much
to
> ask for, and it most certainly is worth fighting for.
>
> Those interested in the subject of trademarks may like to take a look
at
> the
> Wikipedia entry on the subject, found at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark.
>
> Jonathan Mosen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date:
5/22/2007
> 3:49 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
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date:
5/22/2007
> 3:49 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
_______________________________________________
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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: 5/22/2007
3:49 PM
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list