[blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign

Heather Field missheather at comcast.net
Mon Feb 25 07:57:56 UTC 2013


Hello Richard,
Firstly, only ONE person suggested the extreme idea of bringing a resolution 
on the signing matter before the convention. The Resolutions Committee 
decides which resolutions get brought to the floor and my guess is that such 
a resolution would never see the light. this is because the signing issue 
comes up so rarely. So, no need to defend your rights regarding your blind 
child. We know your rights as a parent and many of us on this list are out 
in the trenches fighting for them daily.

While such a sign does make parents feel better--whatever the stated 
disability of the child--there really have not been lots of studies to 
determine effectiveness. While you feel, naturally, that you wish to do 
everything you can to protect your child, the actual question here is not 
whether you have a right to do so because, we know you do. The real question 
is, does posting a sign announcing that a blind child is at play achieve 
your goal of affording your blind child more protection/safety. Let me share 
what I've learnt on this subject in an effort to attempt to reach some 
practical conclusions.

Over the years, I have had discussions with a number of parents of blind 
children and adult blind people whose parents posted such signs. The general 
consensus from these folks was that these signs did not make a difference in 
the behaviour of drivers and, therefore, the safety of blind children. 
Here's the reason we all agreed/thought explained why. Drivers did slow down 
on the first few passings of the sign and looked for the "blind child" 
referred to by the sign. However, because of the time they passed, or any 
number of other variables, they did not see the child or, did not recognise 
the blind child among those children currently playing. Thus, the original 
shock value of the sign wore off and the impact was not reinforced by 
actually sighting the child in question. So, drivers simply ceased to react 
to the sign; they saw it but it was like so much other visual clutter in the 
background. Not one parent with whom I have spoken, spread out over the 
years of my life as a blind person, has been able to assure me that they saw 
a marked, long-term difference in the way people drive. Add to this the fact 
that many of these signs get put up and stay up for years. The blind child 
in question grows up and goes off to college or moves away but the sign 
remains and there isn't a blind child within miles of the sign. It gets 
known around the locale that the sign is meaningless. When the drivers who 
are familiar with the old sign move to new areas, it is very likely, because 
drivers don't like slowing down, that they dismiss similar "blind child at 
play" signs, particularly if they don't see the blind child.

As to your point about IEPs, I actually believe that, in many cases, blind 
children shouldn't have any. The reason blind children, with no additional 
disabilities, have IEPs is because of the misconceptions about blindness 
that are held by the average school teacher. After years and years of 
sitting in on IEP meetings for blind children in regular schools, I have 
seen that most of what an IEP does is ensure that the blind child gets the 
same that the sighted child gets. Blind children just need to learn what 
their sighted classmates are learning and, if they need a nonvisual 
technique to accomplish it, the teacher of blind students or parents (and 
parents friends/mentors who are blind adults) should show the child how to 
do it. I just don't get why it all needs to be written out. The IEP 
perpetuates, in the mind of the classroom teacher, that the blind child 
needs all this incredible amount of additional, special "stuff".

There are thousands of blind people, of whom I am one, who successfully 
attended mainstream programmes, who did not have IEPs and who went off to 
college or to work in their chosen profession. IEPs are considered necessary 
to ensure that an under informed, underfunded public school monolith doesn't 
under-educate blind children. However, it is possible to argue that it would 
be simpler to say "do whatever you have to do to ensure that this blind 
child can do what his same age peers can do". . There are lots of reasons, 
I'd be happy to chat about them when we next catch up, why IEPs for blind 
children are so often not the helpful documents we wish they were, and can, 
in the hands of some professionals, actually be a hindrance to some blind 
children. Sounds controversial, I know, but thousands of blind children in 
the developed world have IEPs that are not being followed, so no guarantees.
I know I've strayed from the topic of signs but it's somewhat related in 
that, while signs make perfect sense to you, as do IEPs, there are reasons 
why both do not achieve what you want them to and there are real situations 
where they can cause harm.

This is a very thought provoking discussion as it uncovers lots of the 
things we think about blindness and challenges our opinions and attitudes. 
Having grown up blind, I find I agree with Arielle with regard to the safety 
status of blind children at play. As a child I was made aware of the dangers 
associated with playing in the street and was always more careful than my 
sighted playmates. I always heard the cars coming before they saw them 
because I would hear cars whether or not my ears were pointed at the car; 
whereas my sighted playmates had to look up from what they were doing, and 
look in the two directions from which cars might come before seeing the 
cars. Some of them would take risks, believing that they could judge the 
time it would take a particular vehicle to cover the distance and they would 
not get off the road right away; whereas I would always get off the road as 
soon as I ascertained that the car was coming and had not turned off into 
any of the side streets. So, no guarantee that the mere possession of vision 
makes one safer or that the lack of vision makes one less safe. As is so 
often the case with children, it comes down to how individuals use the 
senses they have. No amount of vision will keep a sighted child safe if they 
don't make good decisions based on the information their vision gives them. 
I submit that the blind child has access to the same amount of usable 
information as the sighted child and, if they use it, they will keep 
themselves as safe or safer than their same-age sighted peers. If they are 
not developmentally able to make safety decisions then they should not be 
playing where they are in danger and no mere sign will provide a sufficient 
increase in safety. This is a decision for the caregiver to make.

This discussion brings to mind the battles that the NFB has fought with 
insurance companies, and more recently certain cruise lines and amusement 
parks, who did not want to extend the same rights to blind customers. In all 
cases the organisations made the claim that the blind people were, simply by 
virtue of their blindness, in more danger and were less safe, than the 
sighted. In every case it was determined, after an examination of the facts, 
that this was a claim based on emotion and not on reality. My experience as 
a teacher for over 35 years bears out the claim that children's ability to 
play safely is not related proportionally to the amount of usable vision 
they possess. Individual safety is directly related to the environmental 
situations in which children are playing, the amount of appropriate 
instruction in keeping itself safe, by using available information to make 
wise decisions, that the individual child, blind or sighted, has received, 
and the consistency with which the child applies what they know to what they 
are experiencing. In short, the general experience of blind people, 
including blind teachers, is that passive instruments, such as warning 
signs, do not keep blind children at play any safer than other children, 
because it is not the behaviour of others that ultimately keep children 
safe, it is the behaviour of caregivers and the children themselves.
Regards,
Heather field

-----Original Message----- 
From: Richard Holloway
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:53 PM
To: Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)
Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign

Perhaps you are right. My comparison as written may have overstated, however 
in my experience, I have generally seen as many alert signs as I have signs 
that refer to various laws directly, perhaps more. Haven't most of us?

Signs alert us to everything from speed bumps and road humps to various 
curves and intersections. The fact that roads are slippery when wet is not a 
law. Likewise with cautions for ice on a bridge, or a soft shoulder. Divided 
highways are marked to stop and start. There are dips and lane offsets 
indicated. Cattle crossings (the kind with railroad ties across the road) 
are marked (not to be mistaken with animal crossings where animals actually 
cross roads which are also marked). Dead end streets & no outlet streets, 
flash flood areas, and dangerous intersections abound... Road inclines are 
indicated in percents of grade. There are areas with heavy fog, crosswinds, 
fords, roads twisting and even "switching back" passages indicted. Gravel is 
loose, bridges are low and narrow. The list seems nearly endless.

We mark schools, playgrounds, and churches. We request drivers "Share the 
Road" with bicycles. Perhaps the bike signs do in a way, but are all of 
these signs are indicating laws to be followed? Why would the DOT continue 
to post all of these signs if they were regarded as ineffective? Does this 
FHA study actually suggest that all of these "informational signs" are 
summarily ignored by drivers? Or do they indicate that only 
special-needs-related signs are disregarded and offer false security to 
those referenced? Perhaps "Hospital" signs be removed to keep people safer 
around hospitals? Do people generally ignore "Fire Station" signs as well?

Speaking of informational signs, if a community or state has a white cane 
law (as so many do), how could it possibly be LESS appropriate to post a 
warning that you should be aware of, and give way to blind persons in the 
roadway there than to post about other laws? Such a sign would, in many 
cases, reflect an actual LAW. Perhaps these signs should be changed to 
"Blind Persons have Right of Way" or such? We have "Yield to Pedestrians" 
signs, and white cane laws are separate laws from pedestrian laws. If there 
are two laws, why not post warnings about both? They tend post "Yield to 
Pedestrians" signs near areas where there are pedestrians, which seems to 
make some sense. I wonder where we should post signs about laws protecting 
the blind from traffic.....

I did search myself, and I must say I had little luck in finding the studies 
to which you refer, but since there seems to me no uniform posting of these 
sorts of signs, and since they may not be posting anything on signs which is 
legally enforceable, I am caused to wonder how exactly the Federal Highway 
Administration did a reasonable study on the matter. I would be interested 
to read the study if you have a link available.

I'm not at all surprised there is no PROVEN effectiveness of these signs. I 
can't see how one makes the leap from "we can't prove they are effective" to 
"we advise against these for risk of a false sense of security". It seems to 
me that simply is not a logical approach. Isn't that what you legal folk 
like to call a "non sequitur"?

I get that you are apparently reporting what you have read, but what I know 
for a fact, is when I see signs for anything listed above, or most anything 
else-- particularly a special needs sign of any kind, I assume it is posted 
for a reason and I adjust my diving accordingly. I seriously doubt I am the 
only driver in the country who respects these signs and the concerns of 
safety where special needs children are concerned.

Yet with all that said, once again, I was simply suggesting that we be 
supportive of parents (and blind adults who may choose to ask for their own 
sakes) when they want to request signs to take one more small step in trying 
all that is possible the keep their children (or themselves) safe.

I'm a bit overwhelmed by the opposition to my suggestions about this matter 
of late, and even specific suggestions by some that we call upon the NFB to 
rise up and formally oppose the posting of such signs. How in the world is 
this doing anything but supporting the attempts of greater safety by people 
who want it?




On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:30 PM, Chantel Alberhasky wrote:

> I don't think one can equate a "special needs child" sign with a sign that 
> informs the driver of the speed limit or a stop sign for that matter.  The 
> latter is telling the driver s/he must do anything - stop, yield, not 
> drive above a certain speed, etc - while the former is merely meant to 
> alert the the driver.
>
> I tried to do a little research on the Internet to determine the 
> effectiveness of the signs and it appears that the use of said signs are 
> discouraged because it gives a false sense of security to parents and 
> there is no proven effectiveness of the signs. Traffic studies by FHA 
> indicate the signs do not alter the behavior of drivers.  Chantel L. 
> Alberhasky, Esq
> 419 Boonville Avenue
> Springfield, MO 65806
> 417.865.4444
>
> The Missouri Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all Missouri attorneys
> to notify all recipients of e-mail that (1) e-mail communication is not a
> secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or
> by you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it
> goes from me to you or vice versa, (3) persons not participating in our
> communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing
> your computer or my computer or even some computer unconnected to
> either of us which the e-mail passed through. I am communicating to you 
> via
> e-mail because you have consented to receive communications via this
> medium. If you change your mind and want future communications to be
> sent in a different fashion, please let me know AT ONCE.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 2/24/13, Richard Holloway <rholloway at gopbc.org> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Holloway <rholloway at gopbc.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)" 
> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
> Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013, 6:52 PM
>
> Deaf children are less likely to hear cars. Kids without vision cannot see 
> cars. This is not a matter of "self-esteem". These are facts. There are 
> similar signs for autistic children who might react to cars in 
> less-than-predictable ways. I'm sure there are many conditions which have 
> driven concerned parents and other citizens to post signs to try and 
> protect various people in the community.
>
> I'm aware of a facility nearby for the elderly where we are requested not 
> to make too much noise as it disturbs these residents. (Signs are posted 
> near the facility requesting quiet.) I have seen the same near many 
> hospitals. That's noise getting into their building-- much less dangerous 
> than hitting people with a car.
>
> The notion that posting dangers (or presumably even laws) on signs causes 
> people to ignore the danger more, or presumably even intentionally break 
> the law is a bit far fetched, isn't it? If we stop posting the speed limit 
> would it reduce the number of speeders?
>
> Kids with blindness, deafness, autism and a variety of other differences 
> ARE different than other children. If one wants to follow this stream of 
> "logic" far enough, one could conclude that there is no place for a blind 
> child to have an IEP. The entire point of an IEP is it distinguishes one 
> child from another.
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Arielle Silverman wrote:
>
>> The reason it is a threat to self-esteem is because it is a sign that
>> distinguishes one child from another. It would be one thing if every
>> kid in the neighborhood had a sign in front of their house signaling
>> there are children present; that would not threaten self-esteem. But
>> if there is only one blind kid, or a handful of blind kids, and signs
>> only in front of their homes signaling that a blind kid lives there,
>> that is a potential source of stigma. If a sign is used to point out
>> the presence of some people but not everyone, then the sign functions
>> as a label. Most of us agree that being labeled "handicapped" carries
>> a stigma Having that label broadcast to the world just intensifies
>> that stigma. Walk signs, or stop signs, apply equally to everybody and
>> don't separate one individual from another. I hope that makes sense.
>> Arielle
>>
>> On 2/24/13, Albert J Rizzi <albert at myblindspot.org> wrote:
>>> Regarding self esteem and how a blind individual may or may not feel 
>>> about
>>> themselves when we are discussing environmental signage.
>>>
>>> How is a sign of any nature, which is there not so much for the blind in
>>> this instance, but for the drivers and visitors to the neighborhood,
>>> perceived as a compromise to self esteem?
>>>
>>> As a kindergarten teacher, there is a whole component on environmental
>>> signage for students. When we consider one way signs, or stop signs, or
>>> crossing signals, which are used daily and very regularly by the sighted
>>> community as cues, is it a stretch to then assume, following the logic
>>> offered regarding the impact on self esteem, that the sighted community
>>> suffers a lack of self esteem because of the environmental signage that 
>>> is
>>> abundant?
>>>
>>> I am not able to make the connection between signage that offers
>>> information
>>> to individuals as a causation for a lack of self esteem for anyone. The
>>> same
>>> position is taken when we discuss audible crossing signs. Yet the 
>>> sighted
>>> community has been using them  for decades, and no one  suffers from low
>>> self esteem when they see the sign that says walk or don't walk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Arielle
>>> Silverman
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:59 PM
>>> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I am less concerned about a child getting teased or bullied because of a
>>> sign, and more concerned about how knowing about a sign could affect a
>>> blind
>>> child's self-esteem and feelings about himself and his blindness.
>>> Albert, I don't personally agree with your choice to get a sign, but you
>>> are
>>> a competent adult and I respect your right to make that choice. It is
>>> different when we are talking about making that choice on behalf of a 
>>> child
>>> who doesn't have the power yet to make that decision for herself.
>>> I really think that on the benefits side of the argument, we need to ask
>>> ourselves whether we really believe that blindness makes street crossing
>>> more dangerous than it is for any pedestrian. Getting a sign implicitly
>>> supports that belief. I used to think the same, but my training at the
>>> Louisiana Center for the Blind has taught me that, on average, I can be
>>> just
>>> as safe crossing the street as anybody else.
>>> I'm not just saying that because that's what my instructors told me, but
>>> because I have actually crossed many intersections and learned that 
>>> through
>>> my own experiences.
>>> Arielle
>>>
>>> On 2/24/13, Albert J Rizzi <albert at myblindspot.org> wrote:
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has one. agreed, probably
>>>> best to leave this one covered as discussions go, and best to agree to
>>>> disagree.
>>>> Peace.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter
>>>> Donahue
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:07 PM
>>>> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>>>
>>>> Hello Albert and everyone,
>>>>
>>>>     Our experience is not simply from suggestion. I lived it! Even
>>>> more ironic is the fact that our house was located in a school zone.
>>>> During school hours drivers are required to drive slower to enhance
>>>> the safety of children . Having sinage alerting motorists to the
>>>> presence of a blind child in this situation was over-kill and
>>>> unnecessary. Such sinage only reinforces the mistaken belief that the
>>>> blind cannot travel safely and that it's the public's job to "Take
>>>> care of us." And there's the issue of the presence of these signs
>>>> encouraging malicious persons to hassle the disabled individual by
>>>> throwing things at the persons, the signs, attempting to run the blind
>>>> person over, etc. Such behavior creates an even more dangerous
>>>> situation for all children in areas where such sinage is posted.
>>>> Fortunately I was not harassed by neighbors when I decided it was time
>>>> to venture out on my own.
>>>> This is a can of worms best left sealed.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Donahue
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Albert J Rizzi" <albert at myblindspot.org>
>>>> To: "'Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)'"
>>>> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:24 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I had signs put up on my block after  walking out of my home, in a
>>>> quiet residential neighborhood and while crossing the street to my
>>>> neighbors house, and individual in a car thought they would be funny
>>>> and sped up and nearly hit me, intentionally, for kicks.
>>>>
>>>> For warned is for armed. I do not agree with some positions here that
>>>> a sign lessons our stature in the community, but provides information
>>>> to others for interpretation and action.
>>>>
>>>> Much as signs are put up on the sides of roads, as they have been for
>>>> decades, and much as they have been the target for rocks, and or pop
>>>> shots, to think that signs alerting drivers to circumstances and
>>> situations that
>>>> will impact their driving,   and how their driving might or might not
>>>> impact
>>>> members of the community is not a bad idea. It is an option, that like
>>>> any option, is just that. an option. We can either choose to take
>>>> those options or not. to think that some would suggest that such
>>>> signage would then pave the way for a blind child or a deaf child to
>>>> be tormented by others is a stretch in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I feel good about my choice, and my insistence to have the signs up,
>>>> to add to the tools I have to ensure that I am not run down by
>>>> careless drivers who might mistaken me for someone who can see them
>>>> coming down the road, especially with those hybrid cars on the road
>>>> these days.
>>>>
>>>> My choices, are mine, and for me they are not wrong. So I say, if so
>>>> inclined, and if as a parent you feel it will give you a piece of
>>>> mind, and add a layer of safety for your child, as well as other
>>>> children in the area, put that sign up and put it up with confidence
>>>> and purpose. Peace.
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter
>>>> Donahue
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM
>>>> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>>>
>>>> Good morning everyone,
>>>>
>>>>     Like Merry's neighborhood there were signs for a deaf child posted
>>>> near the child's home. My parents saw this and had "Blind Child" signs
>>>> placed near our house as well. They attracted more attention then was
>>> desired.
>>>> They
>>>> made fine targets for the neighborhood kids to throw rocks at or shoot
>>>> at as if they were meant for target practicing. Given these reactions
>>>> these signs had the very opposite effect then originally intended. If
>>>> I had a disabled child I would avoid them like the plague. If a
>>>> municipality insisted on putting up these signs due to my disabled
>>>> child I'd tell them "Not on our block!"
>>>>
>>>> Peter Donahue
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Merry-Noel Chamberlain" <owinm at yahoo.com>
>>>> To: <blindkid at nfbnet.org>; <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:46 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This has been a very interesting conversation. I thank everyone for
>>>> their input in helping Ashleah with her Girl Scout research project.
>>>> My daughter, Ashleah, is a super traveler. (She has no choice as I am
>>>> an O&M
>>>> instructor.)
>>>>
>>>> My husband & I have been discussing this topic ever since buying this
>>>> house this past summer. It is his old neighborhood of his growing up
>>>> days. At that
>>>>
>>>> time there was a sign for a deaf child. We live four houses from the
>>>> Middle & Elem. schools and on the street where parents drop off and
>>>> pick up their children. It can get quite busy- especially in the
>>>> morning as parents are in
>>>>
>>>> a rush to get to work.  Needless to say, my husband  and I have
>>>> opposite opinions about this topic.  We have discussed this idea with
>>>> Ashleah, now in
>>>>
>>>> 7th grade and walking to school for the first time in her life.
>>>> Although we
>>>>
>>>> live so close to school, she does need to cross 2 streets/one
>>> intersection.
>>>> Before school, most times, there is a crossing guard but  afterwards,
>>>> she enjoys staying later for social activities and, at that time,
>>>> there is not a crossing guard by the time she leaves school.  I did
>>>> some research and discovered our town no longer has a special sign for
>>>> blindness, deafness, or otherwise. Rather, there is a "Caution,
>>>> Special Needs Child" sign.  Here, the sign can be posted only up to
>>>> when the child is age 13 or entering Middle School.  Sometimes
>>>> I'll meet her at school and walk with her home to monitor her
>>>> street crossing skills..... She used to run to dross the street but
>>>> now, she is walking... Her confidence is growing!
>>>>
>>>> Merry-Noel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindkid mailing list
>>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindkid:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx
>>>> .rr.co
>>>> m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindkid mailing list
>>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindkid:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblind
>>>> spot.o
>>>> rg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date:
>>>> 02/20/13
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6124 - Release Date:
>>>> 02/22/13
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindkid mailing list
>>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindkid:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx
>>>> .rr.co
>>>> m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindkid mailing list
>>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindkid:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblind
>>>> spot.o
>>>> rg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date:
>>>> 02/20/13
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6124 - Release Date:
>>>> 02/22/13
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindkid mailing list
>>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindkid:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmai
>>>> l.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindkid mailing list
>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindkid:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.o
>>> rg
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date: 
>>> 02/20/13
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6124 - Release Date: 
>>> 02/22/13
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindkid mailing list
>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindkid:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindkid mailing list
>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> blindkid:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rholloway%40gopbc.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/chantel%40alberhaskylaw.com
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rholloway%40gopbc.org


_______________________________________________
blindkid mailing list
blindkid at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
blindkid:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/missheather%40comcast.net 





More information about the BlindKid mailing list