[blindkid] Signs for Susan
Albert J Rizzi
albert at myblindspot.org
Wed Feb 27 04:32:19 UTC 2013
Well I am going to try and determine the process for asking for a children
at play sign. my village clerk said there was a process, and that it should
be the same procedure I followed when I had the signs put up on my block.
Oddly enough, all I did was made a call, and the rest was handled in under
two weeks. I do not recall filing anything, I just called and made the
request.
I am going to find out just how difficult it is or is not for that matter to
get a universal children at play sign.
I sit on the disability advisory board for Suffolk county, and will see what
this is all about. When I now more I will share it for sure. peace.
-----Original Message-----
From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Arielle
Silverman
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:09 PM
To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan
Albert, the below argument is a great one supporting a "children at play"
sign with no mention of blindness. Again this sounds like an excellent
compromise to me.
I think we are sometimes guilty of making things into blindness issues that
are really broader societal issues.
Arielle
On 2/26/13, Albert J Rizzi <albert at myblindspot.org> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Give it a shot. Still not going to stop parents wanting to take any
> and all steps to protect and ensure the well being of their children.
>
> You just can't agree to disagree can you?
>
> One thing came to mind as one of the posts discussed how a driver
> would not be able to tell a blind child from a sighted child. And for
> all practical purposes that is completely true.
>
> The individual then said the drivers would be wondering which one of
> the kids was blind. in that case, the blind kid is no different than
> the sighted kid in those instances, and all the kids would be safer
> because a sign informed that there was reason to do so. The fact that
> a blind child looks just like any other kid to the casual observer,
> the blind kids then become that driving force that brings awareness to
> a need for a driver to slow down, because you could never know which
> kid is or is not blind, thereby requiring all drivers to look at all
> the kids as the same. no stigma as I see it, just a lot of kids, and
> one is blind, and without ever knowing who that blind kid is, the
> driver by default treats all the kids the same and drives in a safer
> manner then he would had if a sign had not been present.
> the need to be concerned about pedestrians with a different way of
> seeing things is a socially conscious thing we should be aware of.
>
>
> Again, just agree to disagree.
>
> I still contend that to not accept the differences we all bring to the
> table is not empowering at all. blind is blind and sighted is sighted.
> Now, I have never seen more clearly then I have as a blind person, but
> that does not mean, without Braille, or assistive tools and such,
> including a cane or a guide dog, that I would be less of a person for
> having to use them. But the blind are different, we do things
> differently than the sighted do then, and heck we even do them
> differently from one blind person to the next.
>
> Seems like if the federationists do not find a value or purpose in
> choices that some prefer to make, then we are not good members of the
> blind community.
>
> Why don't we focus on more critical matters that will destroy our
> children's self esteem, like text books in alternate formats, that are
> immediately available at each school year. Why not get schools to stop
> taking a Childs cane away for fear that the cane would be used as a
> weapon or that the child could hurt themselves. Why not get schools to
> offer assistive technologies, in every school in the nation, so that a
> blind child does not have to rely on an aid to take their notes and
> such.
>
> I am sure that many parents on this list are raising very capable,
> adept, independent and powerful children full of self esteem. But not
> all schools are like that.
>
> Wouldn't it be a better way to spend your energy peter, if you passed
> a resolution that would require that all schools across America
> offered the least restrictive environment for a blind student, and not
> lower their independence and self esteem by getting them an aid to do
their work.
> The technologies are there to allow any student, blind or not to be
> as independent as they themselves are able. Wouldn't it be a better
> use of time to pass a resolution to have the blind student, and only a
> student that has nothing more than blindness, to not be considered
> special ed? They are not special needs if we follow the logic of the
> sign discussion we have going on here. they are cognitively adept, and
> yet they have ieps and are looked as special needs. The are just
> blind, and I for one would like to see a resolution requiring that
> schools not treat a child with a simple diagnosis of blindness as a
> special needs child.
>
> Teachers need to t3each to the students ability and use all the tools
> they have with the goal of the student thriving as an independent free
> thinking participatory person in the classroom, and the entire school.
>
> So much more needs to be done with those resolutions you speak of to
> make websites and intranets as well as school networks accessible and
> usable to the blind. there is much more that a resolution might do for
> ensuring independence and building self esteem for all blind people of
> all ages, if it were resolved that all aspects of section 508 of the
> rehab act were enforced. Federally funded agencies, must be accessible
> according to my interpretation of the 508 regulations. Yet, many, many
> schools are not blind friendly from a technology perspective. Our
> county websites, and our town websites are not user friendly to jaws
> or window eyes. As citizens we are guaranteed the right to access the
> information about our politicians and to apply for county jobs, but we
> cannot as seamlessly as our sighted peers.
> Print disabled parents, and their print disabled children are not able
> to access the internet and the website for their schools, which is the
> major 2way schools disseminate information these days. that could use
> a resolution.
>
> But working on a resolution to limit a parents right to sign or not to
> sign is not a fight that will open the doors to the internet for our
> children, it will not open the doors of employment and it will not
> open the political doors unless and until we acknowledge that the
> blind are different, not less then, different, not incapable, just
> different, and as such we need different tools and options so we can
> assimilate and live in a world that is full of people who are the
> majority and that majority has sight.
>
> The sighted community has many signs we use, and this sign discussion
> is one I feel, while heated, is best left on a case by case basis. No
> resolution passed by the ffederationists will curtail anything a
> parent chooses to do, that in their opinion, serves to protect and
> ensure that their child or children grow up to be confident young men
> and young women full of self esteem, because they did not get hit by a
> driver of a car, who was not able to take in enough sensory
> information to understand that the child they hit was blind or deaf or
> any other child who's god given difference is not a norm that narrow
> minded people see as normal.
>
> Normal is what we make it. what is normal for the sighted world, is no
> longer my normal in my blind life.
>
> Normal is what we make it, and if two normals are diametrically
> opposed, and if putting up a sign even impacts one Childs life
> positively, and in turn makes their parents lives better, and that
> sign possibly positively impact the lives of children positively as well.
then what is the harm.
>
> Perhaps instead of a resolution banning signs, common place pedestrian
> signs, we should work on resolutions that ensure adaptive technologies
> are
> in the schools, that they are in the colleges and universities, that
> the colleges and universities offer course work for wc3 regulations,
> section
> 508 regulations, and computer courses that teach programmers how to
> make the virtual world open and accessible to the blind, and then take
> that next step to ensure that corporate America also makes their work
> environments user friendly to the print disabled, allowing our blind
> children and our print disabled children to work gainfully, which I
> assure you would be one huge roller coaster of self esteem that would
> take them through the rest of their lives.
>
> Resolve to make work environments better, virtual public forums
> accessible, resolve to make banks accessible and usable, brokerage
> firms should be accessible.
>
> There is so much more we could do with a resolution, then ban a
> parents right or an individual's right to choose to put up a
> pedestrian sign letting people know that a blind person lives in the
> area. Peter we got bigger fish to fry, and I hope we can agree on that.
> .
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Donahue
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:41 PM
> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan
>
> Good evening everyone,
>
> I heard that we never could get a resolution passed concerning
> dining-in-the-dark, but one was successfully passed last summer in Dallas.
> The convention ultimately decides which resolutions are adopted and
> which will not. We have taken stands on other types of programs and
> behaviors that stigmatize blind people and have adopted resolutions
> concerning many of them. Perhaps it's time that a position concerning
> the use of "Blind Child/Pedestrian" signs is brought to the convention
> for consideration. All the best.
>
> Peter Donahue
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)"
> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan
>
>
> Hi all,
> As my (hopefully) last post on this topic, I would just like to make
> the observation that all the former blind children on this list who
> chose to comment expressed opposition to putting up "blind child"
> signs as opposed to "child at play" signs. That is, all the blind
> adults on this list who have personal experience growing up blind
> oppose use of the signs. (Albert, since you said you have only been
> blind for seven years, I am assuming that you lost your sight in
> adulthood-correct me if I am wrong). I think this sentiment among
> former blind children is something worth considering if you find
> yourself grappling with this decision. We can argue about whether or
> not the signs confer benefit to a blind child or if they actually
> address risks blind children experience that sighted children do not
> experience. But we also need to keep in mind that the potential stigma
> and self-esteem threat posed by a blind-child sign is a real problem
> that former blind children have picked up on. As former blind children
> we know what it is like to be told, directly or indirectly, that
> blindness is an inferior condition of being, or to be labeled as
> different in the eyes of others. A sign is a label saying that someone
> is blind and therefore deserving of special treatment. Perhaps this is
> justified in certain situations, perhaps not, but either way it is
> stigmatizing and threatening to one's sense of positive identity. I
> know you want to keep your children safe, but I also think you want to
> raise children who are ultimately comfortable with themselves and OK
> with their blindness. I think it's important to keep both of those
> things in mind when deciding whether or not to get a sign or to do any
> number of things that call special attention to a blind child. While I
> don't personally support an NFB resolution to oppose signs and am
> confident such a resolution would not pass, I do think that former
> blind children need to be consulted when evaluating these kinds of
> accommodations. I think that is one of the great things about NOPBC.
> Similarly, I think that people in the deaf community, and especially
> those who were once deaf children, are the best ones to comment on the
> benefits and risks of "deaf child" signs. I'm glad this topic was
> brought up as, to be honest, I didn't even know such signs existed
> before we began this discussion.
> Best,
> Arielle
>
> On 2/26/13, Rene Harrell <rjharrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> I think you did an excellent job of outlining risks and concerns. :)
>> I simply struggle with understanding how it translates in the
>> practical reality of a sign. Unless your child is carrying a cane,
>> her disability is INVISIBLE to the drivers coming down the road. They
>> have no way to discern if your child is the Blind one that the sign
>> refers to, or whether or not to treat every child walking down the
>> road as if they might be the blind one. All they know is that there
>> might be a blind child in the area but without a way of identifying a
>> blind child, there is no way for them to see a 10 year old walking
>> down the street and prepare themselves for the chance they might veer
>> off into the road unexpectedly. As a driver then, I am not looking at
>> your 10 year old and being any more careful about them than I would
>> for any other ten year old, even with the "Blind Child" sign.
>>
>> If your child is carrying a cane, then I don't need a Blind Child
>> sign to recognize that your child is blind and to be extra vigilant
>> about her crossing the road. Everywhere Clare goes with her cane, and
>> when we are crossing roads, when drivers see that she is carrying a
>> cane they assume the responsibility of being more aware of themselves and
their driving.
>> Most of them probably have no idea that white cane laws exist. This
>> is how we safely navigate areas with no such sign in sight.
>>
>> Same thing with "deaf child" and "autistic child" signs. When there
>> is no way to actually differentiate the child who is the reason for
>> the sign, you have no way discernible way to know for whom to be
>> vigilant *for*. The sign then actually provides no benefit if you
>> can't figure out *who* it is that is requiring this caution. If I see
>> a 10 year old walking by the "deaf child sign" but he doesn't
>> "appear" deaf to me, then I am not going to presume he's deaf.
>>
>> I am not meaning to insult any one for choosing to use such a sign,
>> and I don't think any one needs to feel guilty, shamed, or browbeaten
>> for choosing to something they believe protects their child's safety,
>> nor needs to apologize for it. That was in no way the intent of my
>> original post on this topic, and I apologize if my words came across
>> in that manner.
>> When determining this for ourselves, I ultimately concluded that
>> people may not be able to identify my blind child if she were outside
>> without her cane, but people CAN readily identify children. As I
>> happen to have six young children, it is far more practical that
>> people know to keep aware for little ones in general than my blind
>> child in specific, and with her cane she would require no extra
>> explanation that she is blind. Therefore, when the town wanted to put
>> up a "BLIND CHILD" sign we declined, but my when across the street
>> neighbor told me that he shifted a couple of signs he put up around
>> my next door neighbor's house back when they had four small kids so
>> that they encompassed my house, I smiled and said "thank you". As it
>> is, we live on the corner of a half-forgotten street that dead ends
>> into an even smaller and more forgotten street with only four
>> additional houses.
>> The road is so narrow that only one car can be on it at a time and if
>> there are two cars going in opposite directions, one needs to pull
>> off in a neighbor's yard for the other one to pass by. We have a
>> couple of teenagers in the back who like to hot-rod their way down
>> the road and have friends who like to do the same, but they know us
>> personally because the neighborhood is incredibly small, and they
>> keep a watchful eye for my kids in our yard. I think in reality, even
>> the "Children at Play" sign does nothing practical, but as they were
>> already there, I saw no harm in keeping them.
>>
>> Rene--- mom to six amazing kids, including Miss Clare age 11 (ROP)
>> and Seraphina, 8 months (ONH) On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Albert
>> J Rizzi
>> <albert at myblindspot.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Amen and testify Richard. Great post.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Richard Holloway
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:05 PM
>>> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan
>>>
>>> Steve, I appreciate your question. I'm happy to discuss these matters.
>>>
>>> Purely from a driver's standpoint, I expect different reactions from
>>> different situations in a driving environment. In that specific
>>> example, certainly, if the kids were going to be playing,
>>> particularly in a location where there were limited range of vision
>>> for a driver, either sign would be appropriate and helpful. In that
>>> specific case, kids are indeed playing.
>>> If,
>>> as a driver, you're in an alert status, looking for either "kids at
>>> play", or a "blind child" you'll probably react safely, so in that
>>> case I suggest either sign might be helpful.
>>>
>>> Now, put a blind child near the street in a yard or on a sidewalk. I
>>> might actually expect ANY two-year-old to dart in any direction
>>> virtually randomly, so I would slow down, especially if I didn't see
>>> an adult holding such a child's hand. But make the child a bit
>>> older. 5 or 6 perhaps. A kid that age, I believe, would be less
>>> likely to jump out in traffic. By that age, I more expect kids to be
>>> chasing balls without looking, but otherwise reasonably attentive.
>>> Blind kids at that age, or at least my blind daughter was probably
>>> MORE likely to bolt into the street than at a more docile age
>>> 2
>>> or 3. By 6 or 7, she was much more driven to abrupt movement, yet
>>> not at all clear about the concept of cars coming down the street.
>>>
>>> Now as a 4th grader, my daughter is perhaps slightly less likely to
>>> do something abrupt than at age 6, but still FAR more likely than
>>> her sighted peers to walk arbitrarily into the street if she looses
>>> her bearings.
>>> This
>>> sort of situation is NOT what "child at play" brings to mind.
>>>
>>> When driving, if I see a 10 or 12-year-old walking in a straight
>>> line across the street, I would not anticipate the child making a
>>> sharp turn or reversal. Most sighted kids I know don't generally do
>>> that. My blind 10-year-old daughter certainly might. Again, from a
>>> car driver's perspective, my daughter's behavior is not what is
>>> typical from a child her age. A confused driver is, in my opinion, a
>>> good deal more likely do do something dangerous in that sort of
>>> situation. I think knowing she's blind, might keep her safer from
>>> that driver, if only slightly so.
>>>
>>> Most important to me, again, as a driver, I often make eye contact
>>> or exchange gestures with people on the road. I don't know how
>>> universal that is. Maybe it is a regional thing. Down south, we wave
>>> to say "thanks"
>>> when
>>> a
>>> driver lets us merge in front of them, and in fact failing to wave
>>> is often taken as an insult. We wave people-- both kids and adults,
>>> across the street all the time, or the pedestrian may wave off the
>>> driver. The exchange is a very visual business. I slow down
>>> sometimes and wait for eye contact to feel as sure as I can that I'm
>>> aware of a pedestrian's intention. Well if you "make eye contact
>>> with my daughter" what you inferred isn't going to be very accurate.
>>> I can just imagine the later discussion-- "I saw her, she looked
>>> right AT me, then she walked right in front of my car!!! I had no
>>> idea she couldn't see me! I'm so sorry!!!" I feel ill at just the
>>> notion. That's what I want to avoid with such signs. "Child at Play"
>>> is no help there.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, in my situation here, I think that if we were not on
>>> SUCH a quiet street, I would have already requested signs to protect
>>> my daughter and minimize potential driver frustration, however, our
>>> street is really VERY quiet, and we watch our daughter very
>>> carefully.
>>>
>>> With that said, she's old enough that at some point, I'm going to
>>> have to give her a little more freedom near the road. If I decide
>>> she's not 100% safe, I reserve the right to request such a sign. I
>>> don't want a lot of flack if I do so.
>>>
>>> As I think I mentioned before, I feel like a deaf child could easily
>>> react differently as well. If the parents of a deaf child are
>>> worried the child won't hear certain sounds and it puts them at
>>> increased risk, from a driver's standpoint, I like to know that
>>> someone won't react to the warning of a horn, for example. In that
>>> case, I'd prefer a "deaf child" sign.
>>> The
>>> information is more specific; more useful to keep the child safe.
>>>
>>> The differences are subtle, but important. I think this is a
>>> personal choice for each parent, and it really concerns me that
>>> pressure of any kind is being exerted by others to avoid somehow
>>> casting aspersions on the blind population by requesting these
>>> signs.
>>>
>>> With that said, I also think this is a personal choice for a blind
>>> adult as
>>> well-- a choice the adult makes for himself, mind you. I think what
>>> happened in Colorado was really inappropriate, because others were
>>> deciding this for the blind travelers. That doesn't mean if some
>>> adults feel safer with these signs in place that they should be
>>> prevented because it reflects poorly on those who don't want the
>>> signs. If others disagree, but I feel it is pest to err to the side
>>> of caution.
>>>
>>> The social connection you mention is great. If added safety, no
>>> matter how little it may be, from the sign helps some parents feel
>>> slightly more comfortable letting kids have a little more freedom to
>>> play or otherwise go about their business, that does indeed increase
>>> the chance for these very important connections.
>>>
>>> I will add one thing more as well. After giving this a lot of
>>> thought, I think such signs do one thing more. After more than 10
>>> years of observing and watching reactions to the "what are you doing
>>> letting your blind child go and do dangerous things like that"
>>> mentality-- crazy things like riding a bike, jumping into a pool
>>> without a sighted helper holding onto her, playing in and around
>>> trampolines, running across the yard, going to gymnastics classes or
>>> yoga classes... maybe some of us like the idea of telling others
>>> that our kids may be out there and we know it, and they have every
>>> right to be there, yet we'd appreciate it if they'd be just a little
>>> bit extra careful in case their behavior or reaction to a passing
>>> car is a little different. I'm not inviting a great debate on this
>>> matter, and the last part (this paragraph) is just a thought that
>>> recently occurred to me, but I think maybe there is a touch of truth
>>> in that for some of us as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for the discussion.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>>>
>>> > Richard,
>>> >
>>> > While you and I seem to disagree on this, I would truly like to
>>> > understand your position better. Are you really saying that the
>>> > two-year-old sighted kids that are racing with her child are
>>> > totally responsible and in need of no protection? If there is no
>>> > separation between the street and where these kids are playing, I
>>> > do not see how a blind child is going to be at a greater risk,
>>> > there is some risk for all of them and a warning that there are
>>> > children at play is probably
>>> appropriate. Connecting her ability to get a sign with the child's
>>> opportunity to play with other kids completely baffles me. . The
>>> solution isn't in the sign, it is in making the social connections,
>>> and I, too, am glad to see that Susan's child, certainly with her
>>> help, made those connections, but I truly do not see that a sign is
>>> necessary to make that possible. Have I misunderstood your note?
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> >
>>> > Steve Jacobson
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:09:07 -0500, Richard Holloway wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Susan,
>>> >
>>> >> I don't see anything wrong with requesting such a sign for your
>>> >> child at that age, or at any age where you, the parent, feel it
>>> > is appropriate.
>>> >
>>> >> You did a good thing. More parents should find solutions to get
>>> >> their kids, be they sighted or blind, out and playing in
>>> > situations like that!
>>> >
>>> >> (How I wish they'd had jeeps like that when I was a kid!!!)
>>> >
>>> >> Richard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:39 PM, SUSAN POLANSKY wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> We moved on to a dead end court when our son was 2. We asked our
>>> >>> town for a sign at the entrance to the street. I feel it was
>>> > totally appropriate to have a sign when our little one was out
>>> > playing with the other kids and basically drag racing the other
>>> > little ones in his toddler jeep. Would we not have asked for a
>>> > sign if he had been older. Each parent needs to look at their
>>> > child and their neighborhood
>>> and
>>> make their own decision. I think this subject has been beaten to death.
>>> No
>>> more "to sign or not to sign" emails for me, any more will be
>>> deleted without opening.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Susan T. Polansky
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ________________________________
>>> >>> From: Bernadette Jacobs <bernienfb75 at gmail.com>
>>> >>> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)"
>>> >>> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
>>> >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:11 PM
>>> >>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am a very strong opponent of blind, deaf, Autism, or any other
>>> >>> signage. None of us needs to be put on that kind of display!
>>> >>> Only thing this says to me is, "Walking Target!" Target!" Walking
Target.
>>> >>> When I had my hysterectomy at an inner city hospital here, when
>>> >>> I came out of surgery and into my room, my husband mentioned to
>>> >>> me that there was a sign on my door, "Blind Patient!" If I
>>> >>> wasn't sick enough from just having had surgery, I sure was
>>> >>> sickened then. So, my husband tore down the first sign. Bright
>>> >>> and early next morning when he came in vack in to visit me,
>>> >>> another signed had replaced the first one. He went out to find
>>> >>> that nurse. Before long, suddenly I heard the nurse arguing
>>> >>> with my husband. I forced myself up out of bed, grabbed my cane
>>> >>> and began walking down the hall, holding onto the rails for dear
>>> >>> life and simply excused myself quietly and then proceeded to
>>> >>> waste no bones about how that woman oughtta do something real
>>> >>> quick. After all, who was her bread and butta??? I had
>>> >>> insurance. I didn't feel guilty in the least. She turned on me
>>> >>> and I simply went back to my room; called my doctor at his home;
>>> >>> and Hmmm! For some strange reason I never heard from or saw
>>> >>> that woman again and the sign soon disappeared. Then when
>>> >>> someone called weeks after I had been released from the hospital
>>> >>> to ask me about how I felt about my hospital experience, I
>>> >>> really laid it on thick that to post blind signs, or any other
>>> >>> Special Needs' sign, would only serve to identify those
>>> >>> individuals as vulnerable walking targets and no matter what the
>>> >>> intent, it was truly a bad idea. After all, Seems I actually
remember Dr. Jernigan saying once, that "The road to Hell is paved with good
intentions." I'm sure I need not say more.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bernie
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 2/22/13, Carly B <barnesraiser at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi Merry-Noel,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I've thought about this, too. There are a couple of signs on
>>> >>>> streets near our own. We have not pursued trying to get a sign
>>> >>>> for our neighborhood. I haven't really thought that through, I
>>> >>>> think it's just a gut feeling that I don't want to put more of
>>> >>>> a spotlight
>>> on
>>> my child than there already is.
>>> >>>> Know what I mean? I'm not really sure the benefits of having a
>>> >>>> sign...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I look forward to hearing what
>>> >>>> others
>>> think!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> :) Carolynn
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Merry-Noel Chamberlain
>>> >>>> <owinm at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>> My daughter, Ashleah, is working on a girl scout project and
>>> >>>>> would like to know your thoughts about the "Special Needs"
>>> >>>>> sign. She is blind and walks to and from school
>>> >>>>> independently. Do you think having a Special Needs sign by
>>> >>>>> our house is a good thing? Why or why not?
>>> >>>>> Thanks.
>>> >>>>> 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/barnesra
>>> >>>>> iser
>>> >>>>> %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/bernienfb
>>> >>>> 75%4
>>> >>>> 0gmail.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/sepolansky
>>> >>> %40v erizon.net _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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%
>>> >>> 40go
>>> >>> pbc.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/steve.jacob
>>> >> son%
>>> >> 40visi.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%40
>>> > gopb
>>> > c.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/albert%40myblind
> spot.o
>>>
> rg<http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40mybl
> indspo
> t.o%0Arg>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/rjharrell%40gmai
> l.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> " I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have
>> ended up where I needed to be."
>> -- Douglas Adams
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the BlindKid
mailing list