[nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical question?

Sun Apr 26 19:42:58 UTC 2009

The one that bothers me is to be called  a "person with 
blindness."  It sounds to contrived.

Dave

At 05:23 AM 4/26/2009, you wrote:
>Hello Everyone,
>As those of you know here in the US in the last five or 10 years or so the
>field of education has gone from using disability first language  to person
>first language . examples of both are blind person   Jane who just happens
>to be blind.  Would you guys be offended if someone called you a blind or
>visually impaired person instead  of saying I'm Jane and I just happen to be
>blind or visually impaired?
>Jessica
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Haben Girma" <habnkid at aol.com>
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:10 AM
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical question?
>
>
> > Hey Jedi,
> >
> > I totally get your argument about how easily the tongue slides over the
> > phrase "disabled person" while the phrase "person with a disability" would
> > send the tongue tumbling along a needless marathon...I'm not sure how the
> > phrase "person with a disaiblity" implies that a disaiblity is something
> > that should not be brought into attention. Could you explain that? And
> > thanks for the article, I"ll go find it for some fascinating reading.
> >
> > Haben
> >
> > Jedi wrote:
> >> Well, I look at it this way. If we can indeed possess love or
> >> intelligence, we don't say "she has love." or "She has intelligence." Or,
> >> we don't say "A person with intelligence" or "A person with love." we say
> >> a loving person or an intelligent person. I think Jernigan had a lot
> >> going for him when he said that we only talk symantics with phrases that
> >> have a negative connotation or that are considered negative or
> >> stigmatizing characteristics. Let's take disability. Jernigan would argue
> >> that "disabled person" is effectively the same as "person with a
> >> disability" except that "disabled person" is less linguisticly awkward
> >> when used multiple times in a document or in speech. He would also argue
> >> that "person with a disability" might actually increase the stigma
> >> because we're effectively saying that the disability part is something
> >> we're not supposed to bring any attention to. Jernigan wrote an article
> >> in 1993 called "Euphemisms Excoriated." It's an interesting article. As
> >> for me, i just say I'm a blind person and let people qualify that as they
> >> may. If they take the time to get to know me, they will undoubtedly find
> >> that whatever negative assumptions they have are dead wrong.
> >> Original message:
> >>
> >>> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >>> I feel that the terms "persons with disabilities" and "disabled persons"
> >>> are both a bit vague and interpretable in various ways. One could read
> >>> it as "persons with disabilities caused by a lack of universal designs"
> >>> or "persons with disabilities that prevent them from being full
> >>> participants in society." I find that the message one gets from these
> >>> terms depends on the attitudes they approach them with. I think it would
> >>> take a lot of positive thinking to see that the term "disabled person"
> >>> means social forces are restricting the person's participation. Someone
> >>> with a negative attitude might hear the phrase "disabled person" and
> >>> think "Oh, that guy just can't do it." The term "disabled person" would
> >>> probably be interpreted as an inherently incompetent person rather than
> >>> the more open-minded interpretation of one affected by social forces.
> >>> Come to think of it, most people would be more likely to adopt a
> >>> negative interpretation from both terms. I do like that the term
> >>> "persons with disabilities" acknowledges that the subjects are persons
> >>> before going to stress that the persons have disabilities. Consider the
> >>> term "persons with socially incurred impairments." Can one possess a
> >>> "socially incurred impairment?" Like a disability, a socially incurred
> >>> impairment is abstract. So now I've come to that philosophical realm
> >>> where we ask whether abstract concepts, such as love and intelligence,
> >>> can be possessed. If not, then it would seem OK to use the term "persons
> >>> with disabilities" because it would not mean that we possess the
> >>> disabilities. If we can possess abstract concepts, if we can possess
> >>> disabilities, then we can also possess "socially incurred impairments"
> >>> because that's precisely what disabilities are, as you've described it.
> >>> So if we can also possess socially incurred impairments, then it would
> >>> seem philosophically appropriate to use the term persons with
> >>> disabilities. Not that disabled persons is wrong, of course. Both terms
> >>> can be interpreted in a variety of ways, as I said at the start, and
> >>> I've just been thinking out some of those possibilities.
> >>
> >>> Yes, I, too, detest the term special needs. I would swallow it as a kid
> >>> thinking that was how grown-ups wanted to get ablebodied children to be
> >>> nice to disabled children. "Special" is a nice and simple word that all
> >>> kids can understand. I now question it's use for any group, but it's
> >>> especially repulsive to hear it used for adults.
> >>
> >>> Haben
> >>
> >>> mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote:
> >>>> Haben, since you asked, and since you seem genuinely interested, in
> >>>> most of
> >>>> my writings on disability I try to say disabled persons, rather than
> >>>> persons
> >>>> with disabilities.  The latter phrase suggests that I possess a
> >>>> disability
> >>>> whereas to be disabled is to have something imposed on me.  I can be
> >>>> disabled by social arrangements that are constructed to suit a
> >>>> particular
> >>>> kind of body, but if I am a person with a disability, then the problem
> >>>> is in
> >>>> me.
> >>
> >>>> That said, even though I think language is important in shaping how we
> >>>> think
> >>>> about things, I recognize that we have bigger problems than whether we
> >>>> are
> >>>> referred to as disabled people or people with disabilities, and I end
> >>>> up
> >>>> using the latter phrase quite a bit out of habit, so I wouldn't try to
> >>>> correct someone who said persons with disabilities.
> >>
> >>>> However, today I met with some representatives from Bell, one of
> >>>> Canada's
> >>>> major telecommunications companies, and they have something called the
> >>>> "Special Needs Centre".  And Among the many topics my colleagues and I
> >>>> raised with Bell was the atrocious name of this centre.  I really can't
> >>>> stand the name special needs; it makes me shutter a little every time I
> >>>> say
> >>>> it.  And I think it really reflects a bad way of thinking about
> >>>> disability.
> >>>> To connect it to what we've been talking about, I would argue that it
> >>>> only
> >>>> seems like we have special needs because we have built most of our
> >>>> institutions without any consideration for blindness.  For example,
> >>>> there
> >>>> was likely a time when many buildings didn't have women's washrooms, a
> >>>> legislative building in the early twentieth century for instance.  When
> >>>> women began getting elected to office, washrooms had to be built, and
> >>>> this
> >>>> could have been viewed as a special need.  In fact, the problem was
> >>>> that the
> >>>> designers of the building just ignored women in their plans for the
> >>>> building.  Something similar happens in the case of disability today.
> >>>> Far
> >>>> too often, characteristics outside the norm just aren't taken into
> >>>> consideration in the design of things.  Then when we ask for things to
> >>>> be
> >>>> change to better suit people with different kinds of bodies, it gets
> >>>> labelled as a special need rather than a failure in design.  So the
> >>>> special
> >>>> needs centre is a situation where I think the attitude reflected in the
> >>>> language was important enough for us to bring it up at the meeting, and
> >>>> it
> >>>> gave us a chance to try to encourage them to start thinking about
> >>>> disability
> >>>> differently.
> >>
> >>>> A quick response to Nathan.  Just because blindness is legally a
> >>>> disability,
> >>>> which I fully recognize, doesn't mean that blindness is a disability
> >>>> anyway
> >>>> you look at it.  Legal definition is only one way of looking at it, and
> >>>> for
> >>>> the reasons I've mentioned in the last few messages, I really don't
> >>>> think
> >>>> it's the right way of looking at it.
> >>
> >>>> Best,
> >>
> >>>> Marc
> >>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
> >>>> Behalf Of Haben Girma
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:33 PM
> >>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> >>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
> >>>> question?
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Marc, you mention that you don't like using the phrase "persons with
> >>>> disabilities" because it implies that the characteristics are the
> >>>> problem, not the societal forces. How might use the English language so
> >>>> that blame is not places on the characteristics?
> >>
> >>>> Haben
> >>
> >>>> mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I don't usually like to get into debates on lists because I feel
> >>>>> guilty
> >>>>> about cluttering up people's inboxes, but it's too hard to resist with
> >>
> >>>> this
> >>
> >>>>> topic.
> >>
> >>>>> Antonio, I didn't intend to suggest that blindness is meaningless.
> >>>>> What I
> >>>>> tried to get across is that blindness receives its meaning from being
> >>>>> situated in a social context.  I see how this might imply that
> >>>>> blindness
> >>
> >>>> is
> >>
> >>>>> meaningless outside of a social context, but the point is moot because
> >>>>> blindness can't exist outside a social context.  In other words,
> >>>>> blindness
> >>>>> definitely always has meaning; it just gets its meaning through social
> >>>>> factors.
> >>
> >>>>> This is also why I can completely agree with you that blindness is
> >>>>> associated with tremendous challenges day in and day out.  Where we
> >>>>> seem
> >>
> >>>> to
> >>
> >>>>> disagree is that I don't think these challenges are inherent to
> >>>>> blindness.
> >>>>> I think that most, if not all, of the challenges could be eliminated
> >>>>> if
> >>>>> institutions, programs, policies, attitudes, physical structures, in
> >>
> >>>> short,
> >>
> >>>>> society itself, were different.
> >>
> >>>>> If I thought blindness were inherently negative, I'd be spending my
> >>>>> time
> >>
> >>>> and
> >>
> >>>>> effort volunteering for the Foundation Fighting Blindness, rather than
> >>>>> working to change society with the Alliance for Equality of Blind
> >>
> >>>> Canadians.
> >>
> >>>>> If social factors weren't at least partly responsible for the
> >>>>> challenges
> >>>>> blind people face, there would be no need for the NFB.  It's possible
> >>>>> blindness is inherently bad.  I honestly don't know.  I won't trust my
> >>>>> instincts on this question because I have spent my entire life living
> >>>>> in a
> >>>>> society that views blindness as a terrible fate.  Imagine a world
> >>>>> where
> >>>>> every book was available in alternative formats, where blindness was
> >>
> >>>> viewed
> >>
> >>>>> as a unique way of experiencing the world, an experience of the world
> >>>>> to
> >>
> >>>> be
> >>
> >>>>> valued in its own right, where every blind person received the best
> >>
> >>>> training
> >>
> >>>>> possible, where inventors and business people took blindness into
> >>>>> consideration when designing products and services, where blind people
> >>>>> didn't face misconceptions and negative attitudes about blindness.  I
> >>>>> realize it sounds utopian, but we're always using wacky thought
> >>
> >>>> experiments
> >>
> >>>>> in philosophy.  In this imagined world, would it be a tragedy to be
> >>>>> blind?
> >>
> >>>> I
> >>
> >>>>> don't think so, but until we remove every social barrier that exists,
> >>
> >>>> we'll
> >>
> >>>>> never really know for sure.
> >>
> >>>>> To Jedi, totally agree with what you say about the term impairment.
> >>
> >>>>> To Haben, a disability is something that is imposed on impairments, or
> >>>>> characteristics outside of the norm, as Jedi puts it.  A disability is
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> something a person possesses.  You can be disabled by social forces,
> >>>>> but
> >>
> >>>> you
> >>
> >>>>> don't possess a disability, which is why I typically avoid the phrase
> >>>>> persons with disabilities.  You're absolutely right that some
> >>>>> characteristics outside the norm have disabilities imposed on them
> >>>>> more
> >>
> >>>> than
> >>
> >>>>> others, but I'm not sure if that means it is inherently worse to
> >>>>> possess
> >>>>> those characteristics rather than the others.  Remember, certain skin
> >>>>> colours throughout history have had negative attitudes and significant
> >>>>> challenges associated with them that weren't associated with other
> >>>>> skin
> >>>>> colours, but this doesn't mean that it was inherently worse to possess
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> former skin colour.  We now realize that society was wrong in those
> >>>>> cases,
> >>>>> and I'm cautiously opptimistic that the hard work of individuals and
> >>>>> advocacy groups fighting to remove social barriers will eventually
> >>>>> result
> >>
> >>>> in
> >>
> >>>>> society coming to realize that it was wrong about blindness too.
> >>>>> Here's
> >>>>> hoping anyways.
> >>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>
> >>>>> Marc
> >>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
> >>>>> Behalf Of Antonio M. Guimaraes
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:34 PM
> >>>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
> >>>>> question?
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Marc,
> >>
> >>>>> I don't buy a lot of what you are saying. Blindness is not only a
> >>>>> physical
> >>>>> descriptor. It is not escencially meaningless. I see your argument
> >>>>> about
> >>>>> social reactions to blindness, and simply don't agree.
> >>
> >>>>> Perhaps reading and discussing Jernigan's points in Handicap or
> >>>>> characteristic is in order, but we need to be a little more honest
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> ourselves about the challenges blindness does pose day in and day out.
> >>
> >>>>> Antonio Guimaraes
> >>
> >>>>> If an infinite number of rednecks riding in an infinite number of
> >>>>> pickup
> >>>>> trucks fire an infinite number of shotgun rounds at an infinite number
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> highway signs, they will eventually produce all the world's great
> >>>>> literary
> >>>>> works in Braille.
> >>
> >>>>> Shop online and support the NFB of RI at no additional cost to you.
> >>>>> http://www.givebackamerica.com/charity.php?b=169
> >>>>> Givebackamerica.org, America's Online Charity Shopping Mall
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: <mworkman at ualberta.ca>
> >>>>> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
> >>>>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:50 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
> >>
> >>>> question?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> An interesting question, and I'm going to throw out an opinion with
> >>
> >>>> which,
> >>
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>> suspect, quite a few will disagree at first, but maybe I can persuade
> >>
> >>>> some
> >>
> >>>>>> of you.
> >>
> >>>>>> Blindness is not a disability.  It is an impairment.  The distinction
> >>>>>> between impairments and disabilities goes back nearly 40 years and is
> >>>>>> well-entrenched in the field of disability studies.  It was even
> >>>>>> codified
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> the World Health Organizations International Classification of
> >>>>>> Impairments,
> >>>>>> Disabilities, and Handicaps.
> >>
> >>>>>> In short, an impairment is a physical descriptor of the body.  Any
> >>>>>> trait
> >>>>>> or
> >>>>>> characteristic that lands near the outer edges of the bell curve
> >>>>>> could be
> >>>>>> construed as an impairment.  But impairments are essentially
> >>>>>> meaningless
> >>>>>> until you situate them in a social context, and in certain social
> >>>>>> contexts,
> >>>>>> impairments can become disabling.  In other words, disabilities are
> >>>>>> imposed
> >>>>>> on impairments by certain social arrangements.
> >>
> >>>>>> Let me give you an example.  I live on the fifteenth floor of my
> >>
> >>>> building.
> >>
> >>>>>> The building of course has an elevator, but when it stops working,
> >>>>>> many
> >>>>>> people who are not normally defined as disabled become more disabled
> >>>>>> than
> >>>>>> me
> >>>>>> with respect to my building.  I often voluntarily walk up the fifteen
> >>>>>> flights, but many who are use to taking the elevator would find this
> >>>>>> difficult or impossible, and would become disabled at least with
> >>>>>> respect
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> my building.  This is rarely a problem though because we put
> >>>>>> elevators in
> >>>>>> tall buildings, but what if we also put ramps, automatic door
> >>>>>> openers,
> >>>>>> accessible washrooms, etc in all our buildings too? Then many people
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> wheelchairs would no longer be disabled, as their impairments would
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> significantly impact on their lives.
> >>
> >>>>>> I am certainly disabled, but not by my blindness, by social
> >>>>>> arrangements,
> >>>>>> lack of adequate blindness training in Canada, quiet automobiles that
> >>
> >>>> make
> >>
> >>>>>> travel dangerous, discrimination, and the list goes on and on.  All
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> these
> >>>>>> things, however, are social factors that are imposed on my blindness.
> >>>>>> My
> >>>>>> blindness is essentially neutral, and I think this is what Jernigan
> >>>>>> had
> >>
> >>>> in
> >>
> >>>>>> mind when calling blindness a characteristic, though it's been a
> >>>>>> while
> >>>>>> since
> >>>>>> I read his work.
> >>
> >>>>>> I realize that this is not how disability is defined in the ADA, but
> >>>>>> that's
> >>>>>> because the people who defined disability in the ADA screwed up.
> >>>>>> They
> >>>>>> didn't go far enough in recognizing the social construction of
> >>
> >>>> disability.
> >>
> >>>>>> But that's not surprising when you consider the one's who wrote the
> >>>>>> law
> >>>>>> were
> >>>>>> a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats.  So if I have to identify as
> >>>>>> disabled
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> order to receive the supports, legal and otherwise, that are
> >>>>>> available,
> >>>>>> then
> >>>>>> I will, but not because I am, just because I have to, and this is yet
> >>>>>> another example of how social arrangements are disabling.
> >>
> >>>>>> I think there are some problems with what I've said above.  I only
> >>>>>> put it
> >>>>>> out there as a way of thinking about blindness and disability I find
> >>>>>> persuasive and interesting.  And in closeing, I'm going to paste a
> >>>>>> quotation
> >>>>>> taken from the homepage of the NFB site.  I think it tends to support
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> position I've outlined.
> >>
> >>>>>> The real problem of blindness is not the loss of eyesight. The real
> >>>>>> problem
> >>>>>> is the misunderstanding and lack of information that exist. If a
> >>>>>> blind
> >>>>>> person
> >>>>>> has proper training and opportunity, blindness can be reduced to a
> >>>>>> physical
> >>>>>> nuisance.
> >>
> >>>>>> In other words, the disabling aspect of blindness is not the lack of
> >>>>>> eye
> >>>>>> sight (i.e., not the impairment).  It is the misunderstanding and
> >>>>>> lack of
> >>>>>> information (i.e., the social forces) that exist.  If we get rid of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> disabling social forces, blindness is no more than a physical
> >>>>>> nuisance
> >>>>>> (i.e., a neutral characteristic).
> >>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>
> >>>>>> Marc
> >>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Antonio Guimaraes
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:57 AM
> >>>>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
> >>>>>> question?
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> Hello, Just wanted to quickly throw in my two scents.
> >>
> >>>>>> Blindness is a disability. We who are blind are not able to do
> >>>>>> certain
> >>>>>> things. We benefit From or fight against services for disabled
> >>>>>> students,
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>> receive disability checks from the government, and we have loss of a
> >>
> >>>> major
> >>
> >>>>>> life function, sight.
> >>
> >>>>>> Jernigan never argued that the blind are not disabled, he argued for
> >>
> >>>> blind
> >>
> >>>>>> people not to see themselves as handicapped. There is a difference.
> >>
> >>>>>> I am disabled by definition, and clearly make an attempt to minimize
> >>>>>> my
> >>>>>> disability with the use of adapted technologies, and a positive
> >>>>>> attitude,
> >>>>>> but I am unequivocally disabled.
> >>
> >>>>>> Antonio M. Guimaraes Jr.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>>> nabs-l:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualberta.
> >>
> >>>>>> ca
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>>> nabs-l:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/iamantonio%40cox.net
> >>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>> nabs-l:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualberta.
> >>
> >>>>> ca
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>
> >>>> nabs-l:
> >>
> >>>>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/habnkid%40aol.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>> nabs-l:
> >>>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualberta.
> >>>> ca
> >>
> >>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>> nabs-l:
> >>>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/habnkid%40aol.com
> >>
> >>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> nabs-l:
> >>> 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nabs-l mailing list
> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > nabs-l:
> > 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jessica.trask.reagan%40gmail.com 
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
>signature database 4035 (20090425) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>http://www.eset.com