[gui-talk] changing subject names, please
Seville Allen
ceoallen at erols.com
Fri May 25 03:20:40 CDT 2007
The topic has drifted quite a bit, and please keep up with the drifting by
changing the subject line, it really only takes a few seconds. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of albert griffith
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:39 AM
To: 'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Joel, I agree with what you say and I don't think you're out of touch here.
However, what word or phrase would you use to define this all to pervasive
attitude of the dominant culture? I'm afflicted with it myself,
occasionally. Maybe it's just part of the human condition? We're really
not talking past each other, I'm just grasping for the words, knowing and
agreeing with your distinctions.
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joel Deutsch
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:23 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Albert, I'm sorry, and I say this with full sympathy for everything you say
below about trials and tribulations and mistreatment. Literally, this isn't
what aggressions means. I'm sorry. I'm not saying you're wrong about the
*feeling* about such behavior, but it is not aggression in a literal sense.
I'm talking about language, not about one's politics. You're using the word
symbolically for rhetorical purposes. I'm totally sympathetic to where
you're coming from. But you're holding onto the rhetorical idea of using
"aggression" to mean what you're saying. Let's not keep arguing. You'll keep
thinking I don't know how you feel about these things, or how society works
in regard to these issues. I do, and I do. . I am not talking about these
things. I'm talking about a word. Please, we're on entirely different tracks
here, and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't said anything in the first place,
because it just isn't getting across due to there being so much baggage
attached to the rhetorical idea behind using the word. I will try one more
time, using one of your examples so as to take it away from blind issues.
Overt racism-- beating up a person of a certain skin color, lynching them,
telling them to get out of your restaurant, calling them the n word unless
you're the same skin color and under 40 and wearing baggies, is overt
racism. That is aggression. Literally. Institutional racism, on the other
hand, no matter **how* destructive an effect it has on that group of people,
is not literally aggression. I swear to God. That's just rhetoric. I
understand how one can say "by refusing to employ my group, the dominant
society is crippling our attempt to raise ourselves up and improve our
lives, and I consider that institutional behavior an act of aggression
against us." See? I know what that's *about*. It's legitimate to think like
that in order to understand an issue to the fullest, and to talk like that
in order to dramatize somethig. But it's a metaphorical usage of the word,
not a literal usage. I'm not disagreeing with the feeling behind talking
like that! I'm discussing this in the context of written communication on a
mailing list which, at best, I'm expecting to be sober and accurate in
certain ways, or to offer explanations about using word choices like this.
I'm not making this distinction out of not knowing about hard things. That
isn't where I'm coming from. Try to believe me. I can't keep explaining this
if I'm going to keep getting educated about social injustice and how it's a
blow against the people, and so that's aggression. That's what you say when
you make a speech to a crowd. But it's not literally what the word means. Oh
my god. Let's forget it. :-)
was say that the cere"cerebperform social actisim saying eing It's , and
----- Original Message -----
From: "albert griffith" <albertpgriffith at hotmail.com>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
In some cases aggression is what happens. example, my father couldn't get
me hired in to an auto shop because the jobs I could do were those that
aging union members held out for. Oppressions occurs when a member of the
dominant culture acts on archetypes built in to it by years of design. To
put this in to terms you're more familiar with, consider the difference
between overt and institutional racism. Many potential employers have given
me lists of jobs they felt I could do well, but their's is never included in
that list. After getting one of those positions and doing it well for a
year or so, I often have gone back to that supervisor and let him or her
know how well I'm doing and attempt to engage them in dialogue. Our meeting
usually ends up with they're complementing me for being such a special
individual but not with a concession that there are blind people who could
perform the tasks necessary. Jews face oppression every time an unwitting
person brags about how they jewed the woman down at the yard sale. Until
it's brought to their attention, they really aren't thinking about the
implications of what they're saying but it's oppressive all the same. You
can't call it an act of aggression because they don't even realize they're
saying something whose repercussions will end in discriminatory practices in
all manner of their dealings with Jews.
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joel Deutsch
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:47 AM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Hey guys,
Let me try this again, without being so cheerfully facetious that maybe I'm
misleading you. First of all, I'm not at all objecting to hearing
inventories of the wrongs that have been committed upon the blind as
described below. Sure, I'm generally cognizant of much of this history and
also in present-day terms, but the more I learn the more I learn. So, sad
and also exasperating as a lot of these things are, I'm grateful to know
everything I'd never have heard about if not for your sharing your
experiences and your knowledge. So let it be clear that I'm not writing in
to object to your examples of the bad stuff blind people have had to suffer
at the hands of uncomprehending and hostile sighted society and individuals.
Okay?
Now for the second point, which for me is becoming frustrating although it's
really pretty comical. And that is I keep saying that I think Albert seemed
to have accidentally typed "agression" earlier when I think he meant to say
"oppression," and if Albert would only have said, yesterday, "Yeah, damn,
you're right. I did," it would all have been done with already, this
discussion. But despite my having joked about the confusion yesterday,
here's more evidence that someone still seems to think I was saying that I
don't know that this stuff happens. Now, if no one is actually meaning to
lecture me and I'm just being defensive, someone please just say so, and
I'll relax about it. But it seems as if I've been misunderstood to be saying
I didn't get this stuff at all and needed to have my eyes open to it, as
they say. No. Not true. I'm not so much defending myself as I am trying to
reassure you guys that I'm not coming from outer space or something, though
I've spent so much of my life as a sightling, living a purely sightling life
until relatively recently, so that of course I've never experienced a lot of
this stuff myself nor even known anyone who could tell me about what goes
on. Okay?
Last, and this is a stretch for me, I mean it seems unlikely, but is there a
chance that even my joking attempt to clarify what I thought was a
misunderstanding based on Albert mistyping something is actually not
understood by someone? And that is that "aggression" isn't synonymous with
"oppression," even if you feel strongly about the mistreatment of blind
people? This isn't an academic argument or a matter of "semantics," as some
people might say to dismiss what I'm saying? "Oppression" is what you guys
mean, and if you feel that oppression as a violent thing, metaphorically,
who's to argue with you? But "agression" would mean something different from
that. It would mean literal attacks in the sense that none of us is talking
about. In fact, when Nick reminisces about throwing the weak students down a
hill or something, *that* is aggression. So is hitting someone, or insulting
someone literally in conversation with a deliberate insult, not a slight, if
you see the difference. To say "Sorry, Mr. blind man, you can't have this
job because I don't believe you could do it" may be a part of the societal
oppression that arises from fear and ignorance, but to be "aggression," it
would have to be "Mr. Blind man, I'm going to hurt you real bad with this
paperweight here on my desk, and when I get through with you, you'll be
sorry you ever came knocking on my door for this job." That's aggression.
Hope I didn't explain where no explanation was needed, but I am starting to
feel that maybe there's a problem there?
Anyway, please carry on. But not because anyone thinks I naively was saying
"Gosh, how could blind people imagine themselves to be oppressed?" No, I
keep saying I get that. That's why I hearken back to my youthful orientation
toward social justice issues relating to everything from race relations to
sexism. Okay? But "aggression" means another thing, and to use it to mean
"oppression" would be to use hyperbole for a rhetorical purpose. Which is
fine if you're giving a fiery speech and trying to raise peoples' emotions,
but it's not literally true in this case, except for examples like the
paperweight attack. Or sightling terrorists bombing a blind school. Trying
to get someone to chuckle, here.
Anyway, that's enough. Just worried that we're having a miscommunition.I
can't help mentioning one more example. If an African American political
activist says "Even all these years after Dr. King's speech at Washington,
we are still oppressed by white America," that's one thing. That's about
oppression, and social injustice, But if the next speaker at the rally says,
"Yes, my brothers. Who among us does not know the truth that crack cocaine
is a secret weapon introduced into our neighborhoods by agents of the CIA in
a deliberate attempt by white society to cripple the black community by
getting young black men to kill each other off over that drug, saving the
Oppressor the trouble and expense and embarrassment of killing us himself?"
Now that's talking about "aggression." No, Ray, I don't believe the latter
(the second example), and I'm no longer sure that I very simply believe the
former without more nuance, either.
Okay. I'm on my first mug of coffee and my brain is burned out, already.
Happy Thursday, all. :-)
endure disregard and even persecution, and so here come the didn'tanother
reflection he meant mistook Albertthat either no one is hearing althgouth .
----- Original Message -----
From: "albert griffith" <albertpgriffith at hotmail.com>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
I believe sighted people fear blindness more than just about anything else
that could happen to them. While they can relate to a missing limb, they
have no way to relate to total blindness. Successful blind individuals
threaten the sighted in similar occupations to their cores. Example, "Mr.
Griffith, be reasonable, this is hard for me to do, how do you think you
could do what I do." A couple hundred years ago, blind women in France, wee
sold in to prostitution to repay their parents for their burden. Many blind
people are raised by people who act as apologists for those who victimize
them. consider that many blind people need to attend special training
centers to learn the daily living skills their parents taught their sighted
siblings'.
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of W. Nick Dotson
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:51 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Hey, lots of self-defined and actual minority groups talk of the cultural
opression not expressed in harsh punitive physical violence, but keeping the
oppressed in "their place" whatever the dominant culture/race/sex/whatever
deems that to be. I think with respect to sightlings, that many do not know
the capabilities of blind persons, can't imagine their/our world, and thus
can't imagine how we could be in integral part of society except for lapdog
entertainers Etc.. I used to really get rattled about that idea as a youth,
but decided I had better things to do with my life. After all, you "freak
out" pretty often about how we "congenitals" just can't or won't grock where
you're coming from ad an advantitiously blinded member of the club...
(grin) Think about it--I got ya honestly on that one. (peace sign flashed)
Nick
Nick
On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:12:32 -0700, Joel Deutsch wrote:
That still doesn't literally answer my question. What you're saying must be
all implication, which you want me to "get," but I want to hear your actual
thoughts. Are you saying that the blind person should, or does, construe
sighted society as a bunch of "aggressors?" Literally? The sighted attack
blind people, always, singly and as a group? I have a feeling this is more
an emotional term than something meant literally. That people who think
like
this would, in their justifiable resentment, even call benign neglect
"aggression," which I could understand, but it isn't literally true. Again,
language. Please explain how sighted society is "the aggressor." Like
sightlings invaded the Country of the Blind and announced from the deck of
an aircraft carrier that the mission was accomplished? For instance? :-)
Sorry, Ray-bo. couldn't help it.
;;
----- 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 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
When you look at where the blind stand in terms of the dominant culture
theory, oppression is the operative word. There are many who are competing
for the jobs we can do and they pull out all the stops to keep us out.
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joel Deutsch
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:02 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Aggressors? I have a feeling (I hope) you mean something sort of neo
Marxist
like "oppressors," but not aggressors. Or is there such a beleaguered
feeling in the American blind community, or parts of it,that everyone else
is an actual enemy, poised estered to do you harm? That would be pretty
scary stuff as a group philosophy.
----- 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 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Nick, I never where the term, blink, came from. There was definitely a
pecking order at schools for the blind and residential rehab centers. If
you were blind, the next question was, how good are his/her concepts. We
tend to mirror our oppressors.
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of W. Nick Dotson
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:31 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
My college roomy, and best man at my wedding, and I at his, who recently
passed away, (ray Slaton) told me about the ongoing enmity between the deaf
and blind students af the FL Residential school for Deaf and Blind at sT
Augustine. I was really physically as emotionally rough as they both
engaged in predation and the kind of sadism I've read of at english "Public
Schools". (grin)
Nick
On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:32:10 -0700, Joel Deutsch wrote:
Nick, that's fascinating. Thanks for the bit of sociology, especially the
part about gradations of blindness and how that works as a class system. If
you know about the old thing in New Orleans upper class black society where
if your skin was lighter than a conventional tan-colored paper bag, you
were
socially acceptable within that elite social group. provided you of course
also were affluent and community-minded. this is pre civil rights. I don't
mean anything to do with community activism.
A caste system within blind schools and such. Wow. That's kinda sad. But
thanks for the story.
----- 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 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
In fact, the etimology as I learned it as an undergraduate in Visual
disabilities Education was a reflection of the fact that most congenitally
blind folks don't have enough control of the musculature around their eyes
to enable them to "wink", consequently partially sighted and fully sighted
individuals were "winks", and because when a blind person tried to wink,
both eyes blinked, they were "blinks". I figure someone has to have a
pretty shakey self-concept to get upset about something like that. I
certainly remember having been thrown into the back of a truck by
partially
sighted guys when I arrived in Daytona Beach, for College prep, and
beaten
up for having had the audacity to date a then partially sighted girl...
(grin)
Nick
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:08:18 -0400, Don Moore wrote:
If I was white and went in the hood doing that it might be a problem.
I'm
not, growing up we all referred to each other as blinks, but no one told us
we were supposed to be offended by it. all the semantics still lead to
someone who can look out their eyes and see what they would if they looked
out their arm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon C. Pierson" <jpierson at gigo.com>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Hi Don,
Ok, experiment for me please. Go into the hood and start dropping the
N-word
and see how many brothers agree with you.
Does 60 years of anything validate its bad usage and attendant behavior?
Declairing another's opinion as whining doesn't at all address the issue
which was - is the word "blink" offensive as understood in this context
and
by those called blinks?
If it was found to be offensive by most of those in the group in question
i.e. blind peple would you drop your usage of the term or would you stand
on
your right to be offensive (assumption being and I'll take the bet) that
most people won't agree with your calling them blinks?
Votes for or against the usage of "blink" for blind person anyone?
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: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:38 AM
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007
3:59 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
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list