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

[Ben J. Bloomgren]

Awesome linguistics there Arielle! You go girl!

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 15:01
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical question?


Hi all,

While I understand the theory behind using “person-first” language, I
have to agree with Jedi. In English the convention is to use
descriptive words before the noun they’re describing, and when we go
to the trouble of putting the adjective after the noun, I think it
calls too much attention to the adjective and implies a negative
connotation. After all, we call “women” “women”, not “people who are
female”; we call “redheads” “redheads” rather than “people with red
hair”, etc. Saying “people who are female”, “people with red hair”, or
“people who are blind” sounds awkward and contrived, and I think when
we hear these phrases we tend to interpret them as meaning being
female, redheaded or blind  is something special or inferior.

Arielle


On 4/27/09, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/arielle71%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/ben.j.bloomgren%40gmail.com