[nfb-talk] state con attendance
Peter Donahue
pdonahue1 at sbcglobal.net
Sun Nov 11 14:48:36 CST 2007
Hello Ray and everyone,
Our Sony home theatre is a 6.1 surround sound system and really sounds
great. As to accessibility it's a mixed bag. You can perform most basic
functions using buttons on the base unit, the DVD player, or on the remotes,
but when it comes to programming settings for channels, music, movies, etc
things can get tricky fast. The unit has buttons for selecting modes such as
two-channel, pro-logic, etc. These however are a series of menus you must
cycle through with no beginning or end point. Our ears are the ultimate
judge in helping us select the settings we want, but wheels that start and
stop after the last or before the first menu option would make things much
easier for making such menu selections.
Perhaps one of the most irritating aspects of using our DVD player is
the way in which making menu selections in playing CDS and DVDS differs. If
playing an audio CD one can easily jump between tracks by using the up or
down arrows on the remote. However when playing DVDS one must select an
elaborate menu and make selections from it for selecting the presentations
on the DVD and selecting tracks once a selection is chosen. If the folks who
designed this thing used logic they would have designed the menu selections
so they could be made in the exact same way as one can navigate through
audio CDS. If the DVD has not been launched one should be able to select the
language, captions, and audio tracks by using the arrow keys. When the DVD
reaches the home screen one should be able to use the same arrow keys for
selecting the presentation they wish to view and once the presentation
starts playing they should then be able to move between chapters in the same
way using the arrow keys. I once suggested this approach to Sony and got a
schpeal about the complexity of DVD menus,but was given a promise that they
would pass on my suggestions to the proper people. You know how that goes.
Since we still have a large selection of videocassettes we want to buy a
new VCR we can interface with the home theatre and the HDTV when we buy it.
I've seen some units which play both DVDS and videocassettes. Perhaps we can
find one that will allow you to navigate through DVDS in the way I described
above; maybe. If we find one you'll hear about it on these channels first.
Since both of our computers can play DVDS we're not totally without a way
to play the various selections on DVD disks, but it would be nice to be able
to do this via our home theater DVD players and enjoy them while lounging on
the living room couch.
Peter Donahue
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at bellsouth.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
IN line with Mike's reply, I'd like to offer comments I just now made over
on the Electronics talk list. A member named Mat was inquiring about HD TV
sets and descriptive video service. Here's what I said to a reply from
Peter.
"Well Peter, I suspect I have a little bit of a disappointment for you, Mat
and all of us who expect Descriptive video on HD. Right now, only the
Analog side of television transmissions even have DVS at all. I could speak
with the chief engineer of WWLTV channel 4 in New Orleans to see what light
he might be able to throw on the subject. Here's what I am afraid might
happen. When the Analog side shuts down totally in February of 2009, we
will lose DVS all together because no thought will have been given to
conversion over to the HD side. I have a basis for this concern. DirectTV
is now broadcasting SAP on many national channels; but, only on the analog
side. For example, TNT has two channels available on DirectTV. One channel
is analog and does carry the SAP; but, on the HD side, SAP is not available
at all. The reason I know this is because while I was at my parents'
visiting, I checked to see if SAP carried over to the HD side of TNT. Guess
what, it was not there; just the regular audio. I must be entirely candid
with y'all. I have had absolutely no success at all in persuading DirectTV
to carry even the analog SAP from WWLTV channel 4 in New Orleans. Every
time I mention this to them in a feedback e-mail, they always send me the
same thing. They tell me what DVS is and how to access it via the menus
which is something I already know. When I can get anything more specific
from them, it never amounts to anything more than a one-liner saying they
don't have any information at this time. I hate to say this; but, unless
the NFB really pushes hard to enforce the resolution passed at this year's
convention, we can all anticipate much more of the same.
Peter is quite correct about having to choose between watching a movie
with DVS or 5.1 channel surround sound; of which I myself am a great fan!!!
Take "The Passion Of The Christ" for example. It's either watch in 5.1
channel dolbey or DTS or else watch in DVS. He's right in saying we should
not have to choose between them but should be able to watch a movie or
program with both 5.1 channel sound and DVS on at the same time. Thoughts?
"
Sincerely yours,
The Constantly Barefooted,
Ray
Home phone and fax:
(985)853-0139
E-mail:
rforetjratbellsouthdotnet
Skype Name:
barefootedray
Blog:
www.raysworld.blogs.com
Podcast .rss Feed:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/worldofray
God bless President George W. Bush!
God bless our troops!
and God bless America
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
Chris:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to Ray. I won't go thru your post
below line by line but think a few observations might help in the
discussion.
First, I agree with you that there is danger, as I said in another post,
that we might slip back as more and more technology is being designed
with features -- even essential features -- that are inaccessible to us.
Were I just starting out in the job market rather than ending my career,
I might well also worry about my job future.
That said, however, and bearing in mind that almost everyone in the
Federation (from Dr. Maurer on down) shares your frustration, I believe
that your prescription for a solution is far too simple. Insofar as
computer software and hardware are concerned, it really is an open
question what we truly mean by "accessibility". Indeed, it often seems
that "accessibility" is one of those concepts that's rather like the
late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's comment on pornography: "I
can't define it but I know it when I see it.". Does accessibility mean
that everything should have a command-line interface and all output
should be in plain text so that the original Braille 'N Speak could
process all information? Does it mean that we should still have a
MS-DOS-like command interface but that comm programs such as Telix with
limited graphics can be used as long as screen-readers such as the late
TinyTalk or JAWS for DOS can interpret them? Does it mean that Windows
is OK as long as every screen-reader from JAWS 3.1 onward can interpret
it? Or must one buy the latest version of JAWS or Window-eyes if it
makes a product accessible? Does it mean that a product is accessible if
there are screen-reader scripts for it? Does it mean that web pages must
be straight HTML (not even XML) so that text-based browsers can handle
them? Or are CGI and javascript or other scripting elements OK if the
latest screen-readers can process them? And does software accesibility
mean that someone with an elementary knowledge of computers can handle
them or must a certain level of competence with a screen-reader be
reasonable to expect?
It's a little easier with hardware devices. For example, I am developing
for use by the Diabetic Action Network criteria for accessibility of
blood glucose meters and insulin pumps. These actually can be written
down in terms of functionality. But even here, would one say that a
talking blood glucose monitor is not accessible because it doesn't have
a refreshable braille display for use by the deaf-blind? And what of
those deaf-blind persons who do *not* know braille?
What I'm trying to say here is that the issue is complex at bestand one
has to set some limits. Worse yet, it's a moving target. You can't stop
peple from innovating. The best you can do is set some minimum standards
and provide them with some flexibility to handle situations not
foreseeable when they were written. That's what some of our tech bills
do. But many legal eagles wan't absolute standards where one can say "my
client did (or did not) comply".
Having written of the difficulties, let me assure you that the R&D
Committee has been working on accessibility standards off and on for
well over a decade. And many a discussion at NFB in Computer Science
meetings deals with looming problems such as ajax accessibility. But
some of our accessibility advocacy is beginning to have results. I think
you will find that there will soon be a fully-accessible, affordable
talking blood glucose meter to replace the Accu-Chek VoiceMate. And ILA
has a talking thermostat and there is another one out there also.
With respect to mainstream devices such as microwave ovens, we must
ourselves decide what accessibility means. This isn't so much a problem
with microwaves but becomes a *huge* issue with respect, say, to digital
cable television, DVD players and the like. The problem has many strands
and one of the most important is that we must decide for ourselves what
we mean before we can tell industry. And then we must get industry to
decide that it's worthwhile to do what we ask. That isn't easy as there
are so few of us. So we fight where we can and when we can get an
advantage.
Insofar as use of readers is concerned, I think your skepticism is
misplaced. AS long as companies handling sensitive information have
confidential secretaries, readers for blind employees will be justified.
And if an employee is valuable enough, companies will eventually pay for
a reader. Is this ideal? Perhaps not. But we live in the real world, not
a perfect one.
I now ask you a question that has just occurred to me. You raise the
question of whether our STEM initiative is a wise use of our money and
energy? If we are to come up with our own solutions for accessibility
problems, won't we need some experts? Doesn't it make sense to try to
encourage their growth within our own community, that is, that of the
blind? And how better to do this than by initiatives such as the Youth
Slam? It may not be perfect but we're stil at the beginning.
As I've written elsewhere, I, too, worry about what will happen to blind
persons who aren't college-bound and what marginal economy jobs will be
available. But this is a problem for the sighted also. What are those
who aren't computer whizzes going to do when *everything* requires
computers? I am frank to say I don't have the answers. But we have to
start thinking.
Likewise, we may have to start thinking of ways to help those who may
not be mobility whizzes. Certainly, some sighted travelers are better
than others. But merely to wring one's hands and say that nothing can be
done short of travel companions gives up the ship far too early in the
game, I believe.
Anyway, enough of my ramblings.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Westbrook
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
My reply is mixed in your message, with chris's reply placed before my
text.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at bellsouth.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
> Chris, I'd like to know something. Could you please explain a
little more
> about what you mean by saying that the NFB does things from the top
down.
> Your message seems to imply that the leadership of the NFB thinks
they
> know
> better than the average blind person out there. Would you be good
enough
> to
> give specific examples of what you mean by that? Also, there is a
tone in
> your message which gently implies that the NFB leadership seems to
hate
> technology because they can't be bothered to make the average
microwave
> accessible and they don't want to stream the national convention.
chris's reply: I wasn't clear enough in my message. What I meant to
say was
that there will eventually come a time, in the not so distant future
I'm
afraid, when most kitchen and other appliances will be inaccessible
and
unusable, and I'm not sure what hte NFB is doing about htat or will do
about
it. I understand there is a huge emphasis right now on making science
and
engineering accessible, but I think this benefits a relatively small
amount
of people compared to those who may benefit from research and/or
technologies htat make everyday appliances usable. The target case is
a
good start, and I'd like to see more of that. I'm just afraid our do
it
yourself attitude may lead us to not realize when things are really
getting
worse.
I suspect
> that you misunderstood what Doctor Jernigan said in his last ever
banquet
> speech. He was not saying we should never fight anymore; rather,
what he
> was saying was that we cannot always be in a war camp mentality.
That
> sort
> of attitude tends to drive people away; as I think you know.
chris's reply: Yes, I'm aware of that, but I think it is wrong to say
we are
in the day after civil rights. When blacks fought for equality in
public
schools, they did not see themselves as having a warlike mentality.
They
knew it was something worth doing, and htey knew it had to e done. My
point
is simply that I agree that mentality can drive people away, but at
the same
time I don't think we're anywhere close to being at that day when we
can be
complacent and only asking for equal responsibility. What I object to
is
the title of htat speech. I don't think we've reached the day after
civil
rights, and I don't think we will for a long time. I know some of the
old
timers on this list probably see me as an ungreatful bastard, and I
really
don't mean to sound that way, but while I think there is greater
opportunity, there is a greater chance for it to be taken away. If
Microsoft were to come out with a new version of their development
tools
that is inaccessible, I would most likely lose my job. In the past, a
lot
of blind people had physical jobs or menial mental jobs that didn't
require
a computer. No company in there right minds is going to hire two
people to
do one person's job, a blind person and a reader. If the lind person
is
forced to pay out of pocket for a reader, that eats away at the blind
person's takehome pay and could make the job worthwhile. Also, in
many
situations I don't think a company would let you hire a reader even if
you
paid for him/her. Why should they with all of the concerns over data
and
identity theft? I remember when I was dealing with financial data for
our
company. Only the IT Department and the top accountant were allowed
to view
the reports we were working on. I was having a very difficult time
with
them because of some technical issues. I asked for a reader, and was
told
that they would check the company's position on that and get back to
me.
I'm still waiting, and that was about a year ago. Now to be fair, I
was
moved onto another project that didn't require a reader, but if there
hadn't
been another project I could ahve been let go. Do you really think
they
would have let someone come in at $10/hour to see data that NO ONE
else in
the company was allowed to see? My point is that saying "use a
reader" is
no longer a valid answer for everything, and I'm very concerned about
inaccessible software and employment. Eventually we will have to do
something about it, I think, but I don't really here discussion on it
at
all, nless we're just waiting for a better political climate... which
could
be a long wait.
The over all
> gist of your message sxeems to ask really just one fundamental
question.
> "Is
> the NFB really honestly doing any good at all?". I'm not accusing
you of
> anything; you understand; rather, I'm just trying to probe for some
> greater
> depth here. Elsewhere, your message seems to say that the NFB
leadership
> (who thinks they know better than the average blind financially poor
blind
> person out there) criticizes the average financially poor blind
person out
> there for asking for and or accepting assistance; but, at the same
time,
> that same leadership can be found not only asking for but taking
> assistance
> when and where needed. I think maybe you'll need to make a stronger
case
> than you have so far for this. The NFB has never asserted that
blind
> people
> never need help. All the NFB has ever said is that if we do not
need
> help,
> please leave us alone. Sounds reasonable to me don't you think?
Chris's reply: That is certainly reasonable as far as it goes, but I'm
not
sure that's always how far it goes. I think any reasonable blind
person
would agree with that. Unfortunately, I've run into Federationists
who have
felt hte need to brag about learning places without mobility
instruction
when I later found out that they had indeed received mobility
instruction
from very good instructors in the area to which they referred. Just
recently, I posted the message about not being able to go to
convention and,
while I don't have the messages here, some of the responses I got
were,
well, less than helpful. Yet I read Kenneth Jernigan's letter ot the
students at Louisiana and find myself agreeing with it 100 percent. I
guess
I find myself frustrated with those federationists who mean well, but
who
apparently have not read that article. I've heard people comment on
Federationists who resent sighted people, etc., and I get frustrated
because
I know you are crrect.
No, there
> is no "perfect super blind person" out there who has all the
independence
> in
> the world. Then again, no sighted person has that either. Don't
think
> I'm
> picking on you. I just would like to see how good a case you can
make for
> the things you say in your message. I really want to know how you
back
> yourself up.
chris's reply; I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I guess I'm
just
seeing the world becoming in some ways increasingly inaccessible, and
I'm
worried about my own future and I'm not sure how we as the federation
will
deal with it.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> The Constantly Barefooted,
> Ray
> Home phone and fax:
> (985)853-0139
> E-mail:
> rforetjratbellsouthdotnet
> Skype Name:
> barefootedray
> Blog:
> www.raysworld.blogs.com
> Podcast .rss Feed:
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/worldofray
>
> God bless President George W. Bush!
> God bless our troops!
> and God bless America
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Westbrook" <westbc at clw19.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
>
>
> Mike, you make some good points. Being a young blind person myself,
I
> think
> it's sad that many younger blind people view progress as inevitable
and
> feel
> no need to join an organization. On the other hand, I'm not really
sure
> what NFB is really doing to stop the tide from turning against us
The
> biggest issue I see looming ahead is a loss of access to
information.
> This
> could be due to inaccessible computer software, inaccessible
appliances,
> or
> any number of other things I haven't thought of. On the
inaccessible
> appliances front, we had a home showcase at convention, but do you
really
> think that will make a difference? I'm sure most manufacturers
really
> don't
> care whether their products were coincidentally sort of accessible.
I
> hope
> our NFB Jernigan Institute can eventually help with this area. That
leads
> me to my next point, which is what mike said about some people
believing
> that the national leadership are the experts. I see the NFB as a
very top
> down organization with much of it's activity happening at the
national
> level. I wonder if in the future the NFB will become more and more
> focused
> on it's Jernigan institute and basically be a clearinghouse for
research
> and
> product design, while the ACB does most of the advocacy work? I
know for
> myself I really don't see that many ways for a rank and file member
to
> influence policy, especially if they can't come to convention but
even if
> they can.
>
> Also, I really think people in NFB need to relax and realize that
not
> every
> blind person has had great training or has the ability to do
everything
> independently. I know ACB has been criticized for having volunteers
at
> their convention, and frankly I find that kind of amusing when NFB's
> leadership always has someone going sighted guide with them. IF
it's good
> enough for the leadership, why is it not good enough for the general
> membership? If you don't want the help, just refuse it, but don't
keep
> someone like me from using help that we may need. On another note,
I
> frankly think ACB is better equipped to handle the challenges of the
> future.
> Yes, they can be a bit more demanding than necessary, but I think we
as
> blind people are going to have to do more and more of that as time
goes
> on.
> NFB's philosophy is too focused on always being independence and
this
> whole
> idea of blindness being a nuisance and not that big of a deal. I'm
afraid
> the NFB will suddenly wake up one day when all microwaves and other
> appliances are flat paneled with no way to use them effectively,
there are
> no usable telephones, all keyboards are completely touch screen and
> wonder,
> gee how did we get here? I think I may be exaggerating slightly,
but I
> don't think I'm exaggerating as much as some may think. My only
> consolation
> is that when things start getting worse, we will wake up and
disregard
> what
> Kenneth Jernigan said in his speech "the day after civil rights"
whenever
> that is, and start fighting again. I just hope it's not too late.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
>
>
>> Ray:
>>
>> Welcome to the way the "other half" lives. Here in Washington, we
>> consider we're doing an outstanding job if we get seventy-five to
eighty
>> people at our state banquet. Unlike at national conventions, our
>> banquets are more well attended than are our plenary convention
sessions
>> as some convention participants bring guests to the banquet who do
not
>> attend the rest of the convention.
>>
>> Of course, part of the problem here in Washington is that, whether
we
>> admit it or not, we're still suffering from the organizational
split
>> that accompanied the whole Robert Acosta business in the late
1970's
>> when the then-affiliate for Washington was expelled (or chose to
leave,
>> depending upon one's viewpoint) and was reorganized. The old
affiliate
>> eventually joined ACB so that ACB is considerably larger
numerically
>> than is NFB in Washington. In the legislature, however, it is we of
NFB
>> who are known for getting things done.
>>
>> AFfiliates east of the Mississippi such as Massachusetts are far
larger
>> than are our affiliates out here with the exception of California.
WE
>> are, in Shakespeare's terms, "we happy few". But NFB is where the
action
>> is.
>>
>> On the original subject, what I see in terms of dwindling
convention
>> attendance and grousing about the irrelevance of convention
material
>> stems, I believe, from a number of trends in society today. First,
>> society is, in general, much more fragmented than was the case
thirty or
>> forty years ago. People move around the country much more often
than
>> heretofore and, hence, don't put down roots and make as many
lasting
>> local friendships. (When was the last time you attended a "block
>> party"?) They are thus less likely to have great circles of
friends --
>> arguably a prerequisit for easy growth of organizations.
>>
>> Second, perhaps because society is more fragmented and because
there are
>> more venues of entertainment (cable TV, the Internet, video games
and
>> the like), I believe that people are far less likely to be
"joiners"
>> then was the case even twenty years ago. There are too many other
things
>> competing for their time.
>>
>> Third, I believe that it is fair to say that the 1960's and 1970's
were
>> decades of activism. Whatever your thoughts are concerning the war
in
>> Iraq, note the vast difference between the small anti-war
demonstrations
>> of today and the mass protests against the Vietnam war from 1964 to
>> 1975. WE of NFB, like many other activist organizations, are the
victims
>> of the paradigm shift from activism to indifference and (see above)
from
>> the paradigm of working to make changes to being entertained.
>>
>> Fourth, I believe that, rightly or wrongly, many young blind people
>> today see all the progress that the blind have made over the
previous
>> two generations toward a world of equality with the sighted and
conclude
>> that continued progress in this arena is inevitable. Obviously, I
>> disagree with this assessment and, in fact, I am worried that we
might
>> be on the verge of slipping backward, making NFB even more of a
>> necessity than it may have been twenty years ago. Couple this with
laws
>> mandating provision of services such as DSS offices at universities
and
>> this is a recipe for organizational lacitude IMO. I opine that many
>> young people do not recognize that provision of some of these
services
>> constitutes a wolf in sheep's clothing and, hence, when they hit
the
>> "real world" and encounter businesses that don't automatically
provide
>> them with all the high-tech gadgetry they think they need, they
>> interpret the problem as one of discrmination rather than one
simply of
>> the way the world works. All this is to say that many blind people
of
>> all ages today don't see why they need to gain advocacy skills or
pay
>> attention to all the "dull" stuf involving politics or their
agencies
>> for the blind. Let "the experts" do it. And while many would agree
with
>> us that agency moguls may not be the "experts", some are beginning
to
>> see *us* as the "experts",where by "us" I mean NFB leadership. In
other
>> words, I'm not sure that the rank-and-file always sees that it has
a
>> stake in what's happening or that it really has the power to change
>> things.
>>
>> This problem is not unique to NFB: ACB has it also. The
"advantage", if
>> one wishes to call it that, that ACB has is that often its
affiliates
>> conduct many more social functions than do NFB affiliates -- at
least
>> it's like that out here in the Pacific Northwest. When, for
example, was
>> the last time you attended a NFB affiliate convention where a
comedian
>> was the featured banquet speaker? It has happend in ACB affiliates
out
>> here.
>>
>> Now I would hazard that this sort of fluff is not what we in NFB
truly
>> want. But to make changes, we must understand why what we're doing
may
>> not always appeal to "the masses" and, therefore, must decide
whether we
>> can incorporate other items into our conventions that might gain
>> interest and not cause groans of "same ol' same ol'" while at the
same
>> time not betraying our NFB heritage and philosophy.
>>
>> I don't have the answer but I value the discussions as we may
>> collectively come up with ideas that might work for all of us.
>>
>> Mike Freeman, President
>> NFB of Washington
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ray Foret Jr
>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
>>
>>
>> Edd, I am floored!!! Are you truly telling us that at your last
New
>> Hampshire state NFB convention, y'all only had 30 attendees? Only
30?
>> What
>> is y'all's membership compared to that number? I just cannot get
my
>> mind
>> around the idea of y'all putting all that work in to an all day
state
>> convention and having only 30 people there. Perhaps you might
inquire
>> of
>> your members just what the issues are which cause them not to
attend
>> y'all's
>> convention. From what I gather, you say in your message that
folks
>> were
>> complaining that the program items were "so so". If I'm not
mistaken,
>> we
>> usually have over 100 folks at the Louisiana NFB state convention.
>> How
>> about I forward your message on to Pam Allan and she can maybe
suggest
>> what
>> you might want to consider.
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>> The Constantly Barefooted,
>> Ray
>> Home phone and fax:
>> (985)853-0139
>> E-mail:
>> rforetjratbellsouthdotnet
>> Skype Name:
>> barefootedray
>> Blog:
>> www.raysworld.blogs.com
>> Podcast .rss Feed:
>> http://feeds.feedburner.com/worldofray
>>
>> God bless President George W. Bush!
>> God bless our troops!
>> and God bless America
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ed Meskys" <edmeskys at localnet.com>
>> To: "nfb-talk" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 10:44 AM
>> Subject: [nfb-talk] state con attendance
>>
>>
>> When I first became NH state president in 1988 the first few state
>> conventions I put on had about 100-120 attendees, up about 20%
from
>> the
>> previous president, because I did a lot of outreach to find former
and
>> new
>> members, and initiated a state newsletter. We had been drifting
down
>> ever
>> since, to under 50. Last year we had our 50th anniversary, and got
>> more
>> attendees, but with people muttering about our programs being the
>> "same old,
>> same old." This year we decided to devote our whole morning to a
topic
>> important to blind persons and many others in a rural state, the
>> future of
>> transportation in NH. We made it a one-day con, with a luncheon
>> banquet, and
>> the National report, some technology, mobility, and our business
>> meeting in
>> he afternoon. With the help of Blind Services, the talking book
>> library, the
>> Governor's Commission on Disabilities, and Granite State
Independent
>> Living
>> (Foundation) we distributed over 2000 flyers, and aside from
program
>> participants we had only 30 attendees. Our officers are very
>> disappointed,
>> and are saying it cost so much money to put on and advertise the
con,
>> and
>> put in so much work, that we will pull back and only have a
business
>> meeting
>> with lunch in the back room of a restaurant next year. Are other
>> states
>> having the same problem getting attendance at a con?
>>
>> We are using an Imagination Grant to put on a one-day tech expo
next
>> April,
>> which is not a convention (cons are normally in October or
November).
>> If
>> this flops too, I think the board will be devastated. We lined up
an
>> excellent panel of five experts and administrators for the
>> transportation
>> panel, and are working on getting excellent speakers for the tech
>> expo.
>>
>> Incidentally, the results of our state elections were:
>> continuing constitutional officers:
>> Marie Johnson, President
>> Gil Vickery, FVP.
>> Judy Leavitt, SVP
>> Ed Meskys, secretary
>> Lucille Lynch, treasurer
>> and our new slate of untitled board positions is:
>> Julie Clark (new)
>> Wayne Harvey (new)
>> Donald Little (new)
>> John Parker (returning)
>> Stephen Yerardi (returning)
>>
>> Best, Ed Meskys
>>
>>
>> Edmund R. Meskys
>> NIEKAS Publications
>> National Federation of the Blind of N.H.
>> Moultonboro Lions Club
>> edmeskys at localnet.com
>> 322 Whittier Hwy
>> Moultonboro NH 03254-3627
>> my credo:
>> Clinton lied, nothing happened
>> Bush lied, thousands died
>> and over 3,000 permanently brain injured
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2651 (20071110) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2651 (20071110) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> __________ NOD32 2651 (20071110) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list