[nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world, or should the world adapt to us?

[Steve Jacobson]

Mark,

First, I am sorry if my use of the word "simplistic" sounded as though I was being critical of your discussion as that was not my intent.  Also, I did not see your 
comments as NFB bashing.  I think we're after the same thing regarding a discussion of philosophy.  

By "simplistic", I meant to be saying that to view environmental modifications as a class makes the argument simple, one is for it or one is against it.  Since the NFB 
had been against some environmental modifications that makes the NFB against universal design.  This puts the burden on us to be for or against universal design 
rather than considering the many individual issues that make up the environment.  while not a major thing, truncated domes have now been installed in my 
neighborhood where wheelchair ramped walks meet the street.  However, the slant of the ramped walk is very significant so there just is no danger of not 
recognizing one is transitioning to the street.  In addition, the city has to take some extra time when clearing the corner to make certain snow and ice do not smooth 
out the domes.  Finally, since sidewalks are cleared of snow by the city, there will be the need to replace these domes due to dammage.  One wonders what is the 
cost of maintaining truncated domes in locations where the slant is very detectable without them?  But for me to be against truncated domes on the corners in my 
neighborhood puts me against universal design and federal regulations.  It doesn't matter if they help anyone, the important thing is that they are perceived to help by 
government and by the public.  I am not saying categorically that truncated domes are never helpful, only that they have become a symbol of universal design here 
and are therefore almost above debate or evaluation.  They may not be the best example, but they constitute an example that may have less baggage than some.  

I do not believe that we in the NFB generally oppose something that is clearly right because of the image it creates.  What I believe we have done is oppose 
accommodations where the gain was debatable.  We have also opposed positions where the same thing could be accomplished with less of a downside using 
another approach.  In my mind, these are both different than simply opposing what is right to preserve an image.  

As a general rule, applying the concept of universal design to software, appliances, and even the environment is a good overall principle, I think we actually agree 
on that.  However, I don't believe we will be served well in the long run if we view universal design as an absolute, where all of the various parts have the same 
significance because the parts are viewed as a whole.  We also can't give up the notion that if a problem we encounter can be solved by something we can do or 
by a device that we can operate rather than changing the environment, we need to consider that option and not just write it off because it isn't fair.  I don't claim to 
have all the answers, but I don't think we will be well served in the long run if we stop viewing issues in the context of the cost to society versus the gain to us.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:06:26 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote:

>I'm not sure, Steve, if the criticism of over-simplifying these issues
>includes this particular discussion, but I can say that I'm genuinely trying
>to gain a deeper understanding of the thinking on these matters.  Perhaps
>there is no uniform NFB position, which is fine, perhaps the best we can do
>is put forward our thinking on the matter and see if we can get a better
>sense of why people hold the positions they do.  I'd be happy with that.

>I probably don't have to say this, but I will.  This is not an exercise in
>NFB bashing.  If I were an american, I'd almost certainly be an active NFB
>member.  I've even travelled from central Alberta to a national convention
>in Dallas and enjoyed it very much.  I became active in the blindness
>movement in Canada after attending that convention, and I'm now on the
>National Board of one of the many advocacy organizations here in Canada.
>For me, this is primarily a philosophical discussion, much like if we were
>discussing equality or independence.  People cannot possibly all agree on
>what exactly equality means, nor should we, but it's a discussion worth
>having all the same.

>I also would rather avoid getting bogged down in specific instances that
>carry a lot of emotional weight.  The problem I find is that it is very
>difficult to discuss this stuff purely in the abstract.  It is much easier
>with a concrete example, but unfortunately, using a concrete example usually
>requires simplifying the specific case to some extent.

>You say we do need to weigh the costs of altering the environment, which
>come in the form of perpetuation of negative stereotypes etc, against the
>benefits.  I don't want to sound naive.  I recognize the potential for these
>costs.  I just can't let the possibility that someone will misinterpret what
>I'm doing stop me from doing something that I otherwise believe is right.  I
>also think that steps can be taken to minimize or eliminate the negative
>possibilities.  These steps come primarily in the form of education.  I
>don't think we're going to come together on this one.  It might be the first
>place where people simply disagree with one another.

>I'm not sure that believing in universal design as a principle that should
>govern the design of environments, products, and services necessarily
>requires us to stop examining costs and benefits.  For me, the belief in
>universal design is like the belief in equality or autonomey.  We all want
>equality for blind citizens.  You say yourself that we all want equal access
>to education but that what constitutes equal access will differ in specific
>cases.  I think universal design is similar.  It is an over arching
>principle like equality or independence that we should always be striving
>for.  We won't always agree on the best way to achieve it, but we should all
>work towards it in the best way we know how.  I don't think the NFB, in
>general, believes in universal design in the way it believes in equality and
>independence, at least not when it comes to the built environment.

>The point about environmental changes not allowing us to fully develop our
>skills is an excellent one.  At least, I can totally understand why someone
>would oppose changes on these grounds.  My initial thoughts are to say that
>universal design and excellent blindness training are compatible, but I know
>this doesn't quite get at what your saying.  I also want to say that if I
>didn't have to spend as much time developing my skills to deal with a badly
>designed environment, I might be able to spend my time on more interesting
>and important things like studying and spending time with friends and
>family.  I could see you saying that I will learn the hard way that not all
>environments can be universally designed, so by making some environments
>easier to navigate, I'm setting myself up to fail in environments that are
>harder.  I guess I would say that's how things are today, so nothing really
>would change except that the number of places where I need to bust out my
>top skills would be minimized.  So we would still need great training
>centres, which is perfectly compatible with universal design, and there
>would still be places where you would need to employ higher-level skills.

>I admit that I'm not entirely satisfied with the response I've just offered.
>I need to think more about it.  I know I'm not comfortable with the idea
>that we should leave the environment badly designed so that it forces us to
>acquire and maintain better skills.  If you take it to the extreme, it
>actually raises the possibility that we should make the environment harder
>to navigate so that we are forced to acquire and maintain better blindness
>skills.  I know that's not what you're saying, but it seems like a plausible
>implication of the argument.

>Finally, I will point out that universal design is compatible with
>specialized services.  I believe that universal design is simply, to the
>greatest extent possible, designing things in ways that take into
>consideration differences in ability, skill, training, intelligence, etc.
>There are more detailed definitions, but I think that one will do.  So
>whenever it is not possible to design something in a way that will meet
>everyone's unique needs, then special adaptation is perfectly acceptable.
>The goal is to minimize the need for special adaptation.  There is no reason
>special adaptation cannot exist if necessary.

>Thanks for the interesting observations.

>Marc

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
>Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
>Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:05 AM
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world,or should the
>world adapt to us?


>Over the years, this is a subject that has seemed to me to be often
>overlooked and oversimplified for the sake of making arguments.  I don't
>claim to know all the
>thought processes behind all members of the NFB who feel that our positions
>are generally correct, but I do know my processes and at least my tendency
>to look at
>universal environmental design negatively is based only to a small degree
>upon the image that some aspects can perpetuate.  Having said that, I
>believe that
>perpetuating a negative image needs to be considered and is not worth it if
>the gain isn't significant.

>The first thing that bothers me about taking positions based upon universal
>environmental design as portrayed here is that is allows us to stop
>considering what are
>the gains and the losses.  To take a position simply because it is believed
>we have a right to it without considering the costs and the benefits won't
>serve us well in
>the long run.

>Second, we operate within a society that assumes by default that most
>activities cannot be performed unaided by blind persons.  Certainly there
>are exceptions,
>we're all good at music, for example, but in general the assumption is that
>most things suggested are thought not to be something we can do.  As a
>result, we often
>believe we can't do many things until we see others doing it or until we are
>pressed to push ourselves a little.  Much of this "pushing" happens for many
>of us in
>adjustment to blindness training and through our exposure to other
>successful blind people.  The result of some of the "pushing" that happens
>is that we find that
>many things we think are difficult to do turn out to be an everyday
>happening after a time.  Some of what we must "push" to do is not truly due
>to it being difficult, but
>rather, a result of having to push against society's and our own beliefs of
>what we can do.  If we are not careful of what we build into an environment,
>we will build
>into it those things that society believes we cannot do, minimizing our
>chances to develop our own skills.  Beyond that, we are part of society, and
>as such, those of
>us who are lucky enough to be tax payers should be concerned as to whether
>the money spent is something that truly makes our lives better.

>What about the fact that some of us need certain help while others of us do
>not?  This is again a problem faced by all society and it is not one with
>simple answers.
>To try to come up with a universal design in an environmental sense that
>meets everyone's needs is not necessarily the way to go.  For some needs, a
>universal
>design will never be adequate and the needs will have to be met through
>specialized services.  To think we will solve all problems through a
>universal approach will
>likely reduce the chances of some groups having special needs from getting
>the specialized services that they need.  In some cases, creating a
>universal approach
>that tries to meet everybody's needs will either be too expensive or not
>serve anyone effectively while providing a false sense that everyone is
>truly better off.

>What I believe we in the NFB have tried to do is to try to look at many
>larger issues individually rather than taking the position that since
>sighted people have it, it
>must be provided to us.  This philosophy may well be something we all agree
>applies to specific larger issues, but I do not personally believe it is a
>general rule to
>follow for every issue.  For example, my guess is that we all would agree
>that blind people need to have as equal access as possible to education.
>However, that
>does not mean that every aspect of education will be handled in the same
>way.  For example, most printed maps cannot simply be raised or made tactual
>as is.  They
>are simply too complicated.  We are going to need to get information
>filtered in some way to extract the educational value that we need.  We need
>equal access, but
>equal access isn't always going to be the same access.  There are other
>environmental issues that are similar where broader access doesn't imply
>that all access at
>all levels will be exactly what sighted persons get.  We need to define what
>we need in some cases or figure out how we can adapt to make a solution most
>effective.  We have to think ahead.  Some on this list will learn the hard
>way that some of the services provided by colleges to provide equal access
>prevent one
>from developing skills necessary in many employment situations.  The same
>can be true of other solutions to access that adapt the environment in some
>cases for
>short term or specific gains but don't take the longer view of how they
>might affect us.

>I think this is a very important and interesting topic and hope there is
>more careful discussion without getting too bogged down in specific issues
>that have emotional
>baggage that make them hard to discuss.

>Best regards,

>Steve Jacobson

> Original message:
>>> Jedi said,

>>> I don't think that the NfB is against universal design. I doubt that
>you'll
>>> ever hear anyone say that making products and services user-friendly is a
>>> bad thing.

>>> That is true I think.  At least, it is harder for me to think of cases
>where
>>> I've heard of NFB opposition in these instances.  Though, one could argue
>>> that currency is akin to a product, not the same, just an analogous
>>> instance.  Maybe I'll come back to that.  But I noticed that you only
>>> included products and services while I always said environments,
>products,
>>> and services, and my main argument, the one that interests me the most,
>is
>>> about environments.  So while the NFB may support universal design of
>>> products and services, it does not support universal design of the built
>>> environment.  In some cases, not only does it not support it, it actively
>>> opposes it.

>>> Jedi said,

>>> The NFB does believe that overmodification of the environment both comes
>>> from and reinforces the idea that blind people are severely limited
>because
>>> we can't see.

>>> Based on this statement, I think you would agree that the NFB does not
>>> believe in universal design of the environment.  What you call
>>> over-modification many would call universal design.  Also based on that
>>> statement, I take it that the main reason for this opposition is due to
>the
>>> negative impression that comes from these modifications, which is what I
>>> suggested was the reason in my earlier post.  I have to leave out the
>part
>>> in your assertion that modifications not only perpetuate, but stem from
>>> misconceptions because I believe, in most cases, they can be justified in
>>> terms of correcting a flaw in the original design, and therefore don't
>>> necessarily come from misconceptions, though they may reinforce them.

>>> So I'm left thinking that my original two claims were correct: 1) the NFB
>>> opposes, either passively or actively, universal design of the
>environment,
>>> unless such adaptations are taken to be necessary (e.g., quiet cars), and
>2)
>>> the main, if not only, reason for this opposition is the belief that such
>>> modifications will perpetuate/reinforce negative misconceptions about
>>> blindness.

>>> My position was, and still is, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to
>oppose
>>> something because others are likely to misunderstand it.  I think it
>makes
>>> more sense to try to educate people about the need for universal design
>and
>>> how a lack of universal design only serves to construct disability.  And
>>> actually, given the notion that disability is socially constructed, which
>I
>>> recall you accepted, I'm a little surprised that you would oppose doing
>>> everything possible to eliminate environmental barriers that create
>>> disabilities.  It's a belief in the social construction of disability
>that
>>> leads me to disagree with the NFB on this very point.

>>> I could go into the audible signals and currency, but I really didn't
>want
>>> to get into that debate.  And I don't think anything you've said on those
>>> issues refutes numbers 1 and 2 above; I think what you've said in fact
>>> supports those claims.  In all three examples you mentioned (audible
>>> signals, currency, and DVS), you talk about need/necessity.  Adaptations
>are
>>> only justified if they are absolutely necessary, which is exactly what I
>>> suggested.  What I would challenge, and I believe Alena questions as
>well,
>>> is what counts as necessary.  Something that may not be necessary for you
>>> might be necessary for someone with less training, intelligence, health,
>>> youth, supports, and the list goes on and on.  Why not construct things
>in a
>>> manner that requires less of these things? It's great if you have the
>>> training, intelligence, health, etc, but why design things in ways that
>make
>>> these necessary, and more importantly, why oppose redesigning things in
>ways
>>> that would make them less necessary?

>>> I'm primarily interested in why we should not advocate for universal
>design
>>> of the environment simply because some people may misinterpret this as a
>>> sign of blind people's weakness.  I also wonder about how you would
>respond
>>> to the stuff about necessity, and closely related to that , I'm
>interested
>>> in how you square opposition of universal design with a belief in the
>social
>>> construction of disability, because I, and others I know, haven't been
>able
>>> to square these two things.

>>> Looking forward to a response when you have time.

>>> Marc

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
>>> Behalf Of Jedi
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:25 PM
>>> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world, or should the
>>> world adapt to us?


>>> Marc,

>>> I don't think that the NfB is against universal design. I doubt that
>>> you'll ever hear anyone say that making products and services
>>> user-friendly is a bad thing.

>>> I also think you're right about the audio signals and accessible
>>> currency issues. they are nuanced and complicated. but since you asked,
>>> I'll give you and the rest of the list the down and dirty of it all.

>>> With audio signals, the NFB never exactly opposed them altogether.
>>> Instead, the NFB said that audio signals need to be put where the blind
>>> think they're necessary based on our collective experience, our honest
>>> needs, and with the understanding that many street intersections can be
>>> accomplished by the average blind person given the right opportunity
>>> for good training. The NFB is not in support of audio signals on every
>>> corner for two reasons. first, they would drown out necessary
>>> environmental cues that we can already hear. Second, they're obnoxious
>>> when placed on block after block. If you don't believe me, visit a few
>>> neighborhoods in Seattle where it's been done. Yes, the NFB does
>>> believe that overmodification of the environment both comes from and
>>> reinforces the idea that blind people are severely limited because we
>>> can't see.

>>> As for accessible currency, we never said no to that either. We were
>>> frustrated with the ACB because, for good or ill, the ACB claimed that
>>> non-accessible currency discriminates against the blind. Furthermore,
>>> we've been using currency without accessible markings for a long time.
>>> For most of us, getting a sighted person's help or using a bill
>>> identifier of some kind has been no big deal. If the treasury were
>>> outfitting the bills anyway, then why not include accessibility
>>> features? but because the ACB said that the money should be totally
>>> reoutfitted because the blind are being discriminated against was our
>>> big deal. So now, the government has to redo all the bills, [probably
>>> all the vending machines and the like, and the list goes on.

>>> In general, the NFB favors technology that gives us access but for all
>>> the right reasons. If sighted people are the ones determining what
>>> access looks like, they're likely to make the wrong things accessible
>>> based on lack of education. For example, they'll make sidewalk signals
>>> chirp but may not think about the need for accessible touch screens.
>>> That kind of thing. So really, what it comes down to is that
>>> accessibility discussions need to be intelligent and based on real
>>> need, not stereotypes. If you do that, I doubt you'll get much argument
>>> from the NFB.

>>> there are gray areas like DVS. Again, we never said no to that, either.
>>> We just didn't think it was terribly necessary to force the issue
>>> except where we really need the information. But, if people wanted to
>>> provide it, we'll help them do it.

>>> As for me personally, I feel it's appropriate to ask for help if it's
>>> more efficient than whatever techniques are available to me or if I
>>> just can't do it at all for some reason. Otherwise, I feel it's my
>>> responsibility to adapt to the world as is. What annoys me is when
>>> sighted people presume to know when my techniques are inefficient or
>>> just not able to do the task simply because they can see and are used
>>> to doing things visually.

>>> Respectfully Submitted
>>> Original message:
>>>> I was actually planning to ask a similar question myself on this list.
>>> But,
>>>> for me, the question is as follows: to what extent should blind people
>>> fight
>>>> for changes to the way environments, products, and services are designed
>>> in
>>>> order to facilitate easier access?

>>>> I believe strongly in a lot of the tenants of NFB philosophy.  I think
>the
>>>> organization generally has a progressive attitude towards blindness, but
>>>> where we part company is on the issue of design.

>>>> If I'm correct, the NFB generally opposes alterations to the built
>>>> environment unless absolutely necessary.  So even the NFB says it is
>>>> appropriate to fight so that silent cars make noise, and this is because
>>> no
>>>> amount of training is going to completely eliminate the danger of quiet
>>>> cars.  In general, though, the NFB promotes better training over what it
>>>> perceives as unnecessary changes to the environment.  Audible signals is
>>> one
>>>> example, and I think accessible currency is yet another.  Let me say
>that
>>> I
>>>> know the reasons for the stances on audible signals and accessible
>>> currency
>>>> are more nuanced, but, as a generalization, it seems to me that the NFB
>>>> favours training over alterations that aren't necessary.  Correct me if
>>> I'm
>>>> wrong on this.

>>>> So the question is then, why oppose alterations to the environment.  Who
>>>> does it hurt when we fight to have environments, products, and services
>>>> designed with everyone in mind? And the answer that I've typically seen
>is
>>>> that it hurts blind people.  If  I understand the position, the NFB
>argues
>>>> that misconceptions and myths about the abilities of blind people are
>the
>>>> main barriers we face, and I won't argue with that, but then the
>argument
>>>> goes on to suggest that making changes to the environment only
>perpetuates
>>>> these misconceptions and myths.  Altering the environment makes the
>>> average
>>>> sighted Joe six pack think that we all need special treatment, we're
>>>> incapable of doing things like everyone else, etc etc etc.  So because
>>> these
>>>> adaptations/alterations actually do damage to us, it is necessary to
>>> oppose
>>>> them.  This is my understanding of the opposition.  Again, correct me if
>>> I'm
>>>> wrong.

>>>> Now, let's suppose that it's true that such alterations perpetuate
>>>> misconceptions and prejudice, which I think is actually debatable
>itself,
>>>> but even if true, don't we see the flaw in the sighted person's
>thinking?
>>>> The reason we should push for audible signals is not because we couldn't
>>>> possibly cross the street without them, it's not because we're inept and
>>>> can't do things like everyone else, it's because the people who
>originally
>>>> designed the thing called a controlled intersection screwed up.  They
>>>> designed it on the assumption that sight would be the main sense used to
>>>> determine when the light has changed.  Well that was a serious error in
>>>> design.  Both the sense of hearing and the sense of touch can also be
>>>> employed to detect when the light changes if only the designers had
>taken
>>>> into consideration these alternative ways of gaining information when
>they
>>>> originally designed it.  A very similar argument can be made about
>nearly
>>>> every environment, product, and service.  They are almost always
>designed
>>>> based on the assumption that only one kind of body will interact with
>this
>>>> environment, use this product, and receive this service.  We know that
>>> that
>>>> is a bad assumption.  People come with an innumerable set of differing
>>>> abilities, and design should, as much as possible, try to take these
>>>> differences into consideration.

>>>> So even if sighted people do misinterpret changes to the environment, it
>>>> strikes me as odd that we should put up with bad designs just because
>most
>>>> people interpret things wrongly.  Instead, we should push for universal
>>>> design of environments, products, and services, and we should do our
>best
>>> to
>>>> educate those who would misunderstand these alterations.

>>>> Let me say pre-emptively that I absolutely support the availability of
>>>> really good rehabilitation training services.  We completely lack
>adequate
>>>> rehab services up here in Canada, and I think the NFB has the right
>>> attitude
>>>> when it comes to the blind teaching the blind.  Nothing I say should be
>>>> interpreted as denying the need for excellent blindness skills.  But as
>I
>>>> said, I very much disagree with the NFB stance on universal design, and
>if
>>>> someone wants to show me where I've mischaracterized the position, or
>why
>>>> the position ought to be supported, I would really appreciate that.

>>>> Regards,

>>>> Marc

>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
>>>> Behalf Of alena roberts
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 AM
>>>> To: nabs; National Association of Blind Students mailing list; NFB of
>>>> Oregon mailing list
>>>> Subject: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world,or should the
>>>> world adapt to us?


>>>> Should the world adapt to the blind, or should we adapt to the world?
>>>> This is the question I posed in my blog today. I believe that it
>>>> should be both. People with disabilities need to be given tools, but
>>>> we also have the right to participate in society which may mean
>>>> accomidating our needs. I would really like to hear other people's
>>>> opinions about this topic. Please visit my blog and let your voice be
>>>> heard. Thanks.

>>>> http://www.blindgal.com

>>>> --
>>>> Alena Roberts
>>>> Blog: http://www.blindgal.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/loneblindjedi%40samo
>>> bile.net

>>> --
>>> Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit
>>> www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.

>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/loneblindjedi%40samo
>bile.net

>>--
>>Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit
>>www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.

>>_______________________________________________
>>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/steve.jacobson%40vi
>si.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/steve.jacobson%40visi.com