[nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?

Thu Dec 20 20:35:26 UTC 2012

Good morning, Kirt, and other interesteds,

Trying to fix a perceived problem with policy is 
always way over thought, thought up by some 
social scientists behind desks with little, to no 
experience living as a person whose social 
positioning they seek to improve.  is trying to 
protect. People ought to have noticed how awkward 
and cumbersome, even divisive is such a construct, that blindness is just fine.
Car
>Carley, Jedi and all,
>   I'm not saying I like person-first language, neither am I suggesting
>its application is helpful or appropriate.  I am, however, of the
>belief that the intention behind person-first language is to increase
>the belief that disabled people are people first and foremost, instead
>of walking, talking, breathing disabilities.  I'm sure we've all been
>treated as though we are blindness, (Carley, incidentally, that is the
>only part of being blind I find to be more than an inconvenience), and
>I think the people who propogated person-first language were trying to
>eliminate this second-class treatment.  Ironically enough, I think the
>actual application of person-first language has had an effect counter
>to its original intentions, but I can at least respect the desires
>behind the effort.  Am I making any sense?
>   Warmest regards, and happy holidays,
>Kirt
>
>On 12/20/12, Jedi Moerke <loneblindjedi at samobile.net> wrote:
> > That is a fabulous question! I would also be very interested in knowing who
> > started the person first movement. If it was The disabled community who
> > started it, which group was it exactly and why? If it was the nondisabled
> > group that started it, which group was it and why? I wonder, if it were
> > persons with disabilities who started this, if they would be happy with the
> > results if they knew how it will turn out. If memory serves, it was the
> > Secretary of Education the started person first language. There was a
> > memorandum sent out to government officials and workers in the early 1990s
> > shortly after the passage of the Americans with disabilities act. This
> > memorandum gave extremely specific instructions on how various disability
> > groups ought to be referred to. But that 
> still does not answer a question of
> > how person first language actually got started. It does however, describe
> > how person first language was propagated.
> >
> > Respect fully submitted
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Carly Mihalakis <carlymih at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Listen, I don't know much about this "person first," nonsense but I would
> >> guess that this whole concept of addressing the person first was, like
> >> talking about a Black, or gay person, thought up by folk who aren't
> >> themselves,  Black, or gay, no? This idea of nonmembers labeling us
> >> horrifies me. A step toward self determination, in my view, is to figure
> >> out what makes how we ought to  be identified.
> >> Car 2012, you wrote:
> >>> Ashley,
> >>>  For myself, I mostly agree that person-first language is cumbersome
> >>> and doesn't really address the real problems disabled people (or
> >>> "people with disabilities", if anyone cares) still face in our
> >>> society.  However, the fact that the "sighted world" insists on
> >>> person-first language indicates, to me, that people are at least
> >>> trying to think of us as people who happen to have disabilities rather
> >>> than disabled people.  I've often heard Federationists say something
> >>> to the effect of "I'm not a blind person!!!  I just happen to be
> >>> blind, and there's a real difference!"  I think that statements like
> >>> that from disabled people (which are totally understandable) have, at
> >>> least in part, inspired the professional world to adopt person-first
> >>> language.  I don't think it's the right answer to descrimination and
> >>> marginalization, but at least the powers that be in the academic world
> >>> recognize, on paper if nothing else, that people often define us in
> >>> terms of our disabilities and not who we really are.  Surely, that
> >>> recognition is at least a small step in the right direction?
> >>>  Just my thoughts,
> >>> Kirt
> >>>
> >>> On 12/19/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> > Arielle,
> >>> > Well said. I prefer just blind people as well.
> >>> > Its interesting to me that we usually put the adjectives before the
> >>> > person
> >>> > to describe them.
> >>> > We do not say person with black hair but we say black haired person.
> >>> > We will not say person who is tall but  tall person. Yet with a
> >>> > disability
> >>> > we have to say person first. It seems odd to me.
> >>> > Just say deaf person, blind person, etc. It sounds less cumbersome  to
> >>> > me.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ashley
> >>> >
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: Arielle Silverman
> >>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:07 PM
> >>> > To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> >>> > Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> > The question of whether we describe ourselves in terms of blindness or
> >>> > in terms of other traits we have is an interesting one as well, but I
> >>> > think that's a different question from what the article I posted is
> >>> > asking about. The article is asking what we should call ourselves (or
> >>> > what others should call us) in discussions where blindness is the
> >>> > focus. Should we refer to ourselves as "people who are blind" or
> >>> > "people with blindness" or is the term "blind people" more
> >>> > appropriate?
> >>> > I find this issue to be personally relevant because I am applying for
> >>> > a job with a blindness research group, and I noticed that everywhere
> >>> > in their online materials, publications etc. they refer to their
> >>> > research participants as "people who are blind", "youth with visual
> >>> > impairments" etc. I don't think this necessarily reflects on their
> >>> > philosophy, but is probably just the language that they are accustomed
> >>> > to using and that is required by journals and other outlets. I also
> >>> > co-authored a paper a few years ago and one journal to which we sent
> >>> > the paper insisted that we use the term "people with blindness"
> >>> > throughout the entire manuscript, which I found extremely cumbersome
> >>> > and awkward. Anyway, in applying for this job it has been strange for
> >>> > me to either use the term "people who are blind" or to say "blind
> >>> > people" and risk causing offense. As a member of the blind community I
> >>> > feel on some level that everyone in this community are members of an
> >>> > extended family, and so it's weird to refer to all you guys as "people
> >>> > who are blind" and distance them from blindness, which I consider a
> >>> > positive identity that I share with all of you. This is also why I
> >>> > like to call someone with partial sight "blind" rather than "visually
> >>> > impaired" because calling them "blind" is welcoming them into my
> >>> > blindness family and community. Those of you who are NFB members, ACB
> >>> > members or part of any blindness organization probably understand the
> >>> > collective pride and joy that can rise up when we are in a convention
> >>> > assembly and call ourselves "the blind". Looking at it that way, I
> >>> > feel like it's almost insulting to refer to members of my blindness
> >>> > family as just "people who are blind" rather than fully including them
> >>> > with the label "blind people". So I understand what the article is
> >>> > talking about. At the same time, I wonder if there are folks out there
> >>> > who truly prefer to be called people who are blind instead, and if
> >>> > they feel this is putting their humanity before their blindness.
> >>> > Arielle
> >>> >
> >>> > On 12/11/12, Kirt <kirt.crazydude at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Brandon,
> >>> >> Thank you for writing my email for me. :-)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:11 PM, "Brandon Keith Biggs"
> >>> >> <brandonkeithbiggs at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Hello,
> >>> >>> I used to call myself: "A blind actor" but recently I've stopped and
> >>> >>> what
> >>> >>> I've noticed is that often times people forget you are blind to some
> >>> >>> extent when you don't even say you are blind. I was talking to a guy
> >>> >>> on
> >>> >>> my
> >>> >>> dance teem and he said he had no idea I was blind until I was talking
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> my teacher after a conference and mentioned something about following
> >>> >>> a
> >>> >>> leader as a blind person.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I personally think it matters in a context. If people are talking
> >>> >>> about
> >>> >>> my
> >>> >>> acting ability, I don't want to be known as a "blind actor" in
> >>> >>> reference
> >>> >>> to my acting ability, that would just be negative. There are aspects
> >>> >>> where
> >>> >>> saying blind actor or actor who is blind would be appropriate at the
> >>> >>> end
> >>> >>> of an article or possibly at the end of a bio, but that is only
> >>> >>> because
> >>> >>> people like the challenge of trying to figure out who the blind guy
> >>> >>> is
> >>> >>> :).
> >>> >>> I ask them after a show and they tell me what they saw that tipped
> >>> >>> them
> >>> >>> off. This helps me in becoming more natural and makes a little game
> >>> >>> of
> >>> >>> something that is of no major import for that point of time, but
> >>> >>> could
> >>> >>> mean me getting or losing a job later on.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> If I was in an article about genetic research, I would like it to be
> >>> >>> known
> >>> >>> that I'm blind first, because that is what is being tested for. They
> >>> >>> don't
> >>> >>> really care about me as a person, they just want to know I'm blind.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> If I'm talking to a director or agent about my singing, they don't
> >>> >>> need
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> know I'm blind, they want to know my voice type and my best rolls.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I'm a blind person who happens to be blind and I'm OK with both :). I
> >>> >>> don't even notice the difference.
> >>> >>> Thanks,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Brandon Keith Biggs
> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Arielle Silverman
> >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:40 PM
> >>> >>> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> >>> Subject: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I saw the below article on another list and thought it was very
> >>> >>> interesting. What do you guys think?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> >>> From: LILITH Finkler <lilithfinkler at hotmail.com>
> >>> >>> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:41:42 -0300
> >>> >>> Subject: New Article: "Person-first language: Noble intent but to
> >>> >>> what
> >>> >>> effect?"
> >>> >>> To: DISABILITY-RESEARCH at jiscmail.ac.uk
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Dear Colleagues. Please see article below from the current issue of
> >>> >>> the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The journal is publishing a
> >>> >>> series on "person first language".
> >>> >>> 
> Lilith===========================================================================================
> >>> >>> CMAJ December 11, 2012 vol. 184 no. 18 First published November 5,
> >>> >>> 2012, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4319© 2012 Canadian Medical Association
> >>> >>> or
> >>> >>> its licensorsAll editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of
> >>> >>> the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical
> >>> >>> Association.NewsPerson-first language: Noble intent but to what
> >>> >>> effect?Roger Collier-Author AffiliationsCMAJKenneth St. Louis grew up
> >>> >>> with a moderate stutter that he eventually got under control in
> >>> >>> college. His struggle with stuttering led to an interest in
> >>> >>> speech-language pathology, which he now teaches at West Virginia
> >>> >>> University in Morgan-town. St. Louis is an expert in fluency
> >>> >>> disorders, including cluttering, a condition characterized by rapid
> >>> >>> speech with an erratic rhythm. Once, after a journal sent him the
> >>> >>> edited version of a paper he had submitted on cluttering, St. Louis
> >>> >>> noticed something curious.“They changed ‘clutterer’ to ‘person who
> >>> >>> clutters’ all the way through,” says St. Louis.The changes to St.
> >>> >>> Louis’ prose stem from the person-first (or people-first) language
> >>> >>> movement, which began some 20 years ago to promote the concept that a
> >>> >>> person shouldn’t be defined by a diagnosis. By literally putting
> >>> >>> “person” first in language, what was once a label becomes a mere
> >>> >>> characteristic. No longer are there “disabled people.” Instead, there
> >>> >>> are “people with disabilities.”
> >>> >>> No reasonable person would challenge the intent behind person-first
> >>> >>> language. Who, after all, would prefer to be known as a condition
> >>> >>> rather than as a person? But is this massive effort to change the
> >>> >>> language of disability and disease having any effect? Is it actually
> >>> >>> changing attitudes, reducing stigma or improving lives? Skeptics
> >>> >>> point
> >>> >>> to the nonexistent body of evidence. Advocates claim it starts with
> >>> >>> language and that results will follow.Words are indeed powerful, and
> >>> >>> they can perpetuate hurtful stereotypes and reinforce negative
> >>> >>> attitudes, suggests Kathie Snow, a disability rights advocate who
> >>> >>> runs
> >>> >>> the “Disability is Natural” website (www.disabilityisnatural.com).
> >>> >>> “People with developmental disabilities have, throughout history,
> >>> >>> been
> >>> >>> marginalized and devalued because of labels,” she says. “Labels have
> >>> >>> always caused people to be devalued. It has caused people to be put
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> death, to be sterilized against their will.”If a person-first
> >>> >>> language
> >>> >>> advocate had commissioned this sign, it would read: “CHILD WITH
> >>> >>> AUTISM
> >>> >>> AREA.”Image courtesy of © 2012 ThinkstockSuggesting that a diagnosis
> >>> >>> is a person’s most important characteristic reinforces the
> >>> >>> all-too-common opinion that people with disabilities have limited
> >>> >>> potential and society should expect little from them, Snow has
> >>> >>> written
> >>> >>> (www.disabilityisnatural.com/images/PDF/pfl09.pdf). She suggests that
> >>> >>> the disability rights movement is changing language to be more
> >>> >>> respectful rather than merely politically correct, in a similar vein
> >>> >>> to past efforts by civil rights and women’s movements.“If people with
> >>> >>> disabilities are to be included in all aspects of society, and if
> >>> >>> they’re to be respected and valued as our fellow citizens, we must
> >>> >>> stop using language that marginalizes and sets them apart,” wrote
> >>> >>> Snow. “History tells us that the first way to devalue a person is
> >>> >>> through language.”
> >>> >>> The global movement to promote person-first language has been
> >>> >>> extremely successful. It is now standard in government documents
> >>> >>> around the world, as well as in scientific journals and many other
> >>> >>> publications. Widespread adoption of this grammatical structure is
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> reason that, present sentence excepted, this article will not refer
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> a stutterer, a cancer patient, a diabetic, a blind man, a deaf woman
> >>> >>> or an autistic person. It might, however, refer to a person who
> >>> >>> stutters, a person with cancer, a person with diabetes, a man who is
> >>> >>> visually impaired, a woman who is hearing impaired or a person with
> >>> >>> autism.
> >>> >>> But some people, including members of several disability groups,
> >>> >>> aren’t big fans of person-first language. They claim it is merely
> >>> >>> political correctness run amok, verbosity intended to spare hurt
> >>> >>> feelings yet accomplishing little more than turning one word into two
> >>> >>> or more words. Even worse, some suggest, tucking the names of
> >>> >>> diseases
> >>> >>> and disabilities in the shadows may have the opposite effect of what
> >>> >>> is intended. It could stigmatize words that were never considered
> >>> >>> derogatory or pejorative in the first place.
> >>> >>> St. Louis’ introduction to person-first language made him wonder if
> >>> >>> it
> >>> >>> actually had an effect on opinions about words used to label people
> >>> >>> with various conditions, including speech, language and hearing
> >>> >>> disorders (J Fluency Discord 1999;24:124). He found that the
> >>> >>> person-first version of a label was regarded as “significantly more
> >>> >>> positive” in only 2% of comparisons. “For example,” wrote St. Louis,
> >>> >>> “with the exception of widely known terms that have stigmatized
> >>> >>> individuals (e.g., ‘Moron’), terms identifying serious mental illness
> >>> >>> (‘psychosis’) or dreaded diseases (‘leprosy’), person-first
> >>> >>> nomenclature made little difference in minimizing negative
> >>> >>> reactions.”There is no evidence that person-first terminology
> >>> >>> enhances
> >>> >>> sensitivity or reduces insensitivity, notes St. Louis, and yet health
> >>> >>> professionals and scholarly publishers are now among its strongest
> >>> >>> advocates. Good luck getting your work published in a scientific
> >>> >>> journal if you don’t conform. In the field of speech-language
> >>> >>> pathology, terms such as “person who stutters” or “child who
> >>> >>> stutters”
> >>> >>> have even become acronyms (PWS and CWS). To St. Louis, the notion
> >>> >>> that
> >>> >>> calling someone a PWS is more sensitive than calling them a stutterer
> >>> >>> is nothing short of ludicrous.
> >>> >>> “It’s not really about sensitivity,” says St. Louis. “It’s about:
> >>> >>> This
> >>> >>> is just the way it’s done.”Furthermore, suggests St. Louis, the
> >>> >>> sentiment expressed in communication is far more important than the
> >>> >>> linguistic circumlocutions present in the language. “If you are going
> >>> >>> to be a jerk,” he says, “you can be just as much of a jerk using
> >>> >>> person-first language as using the direct label.”Members of some
> >>> >>> disability groups have become so fed up with pressure to adopt
> >>> >>> person-first language that they have begun pushing back. The National
> >>> >>> Federation for the Blind in the United States has long opposed what
> >>> >>> it
> >>> >>> perceives as “an unholy crusade” to force everyone to use
> >>> >>> person-first
> >>> >>> language
> >>> >>> (www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0903/bm090309.htm).The
> >>> >>> federation’s main publication, the Braille Monitor, has unequivocally
> >>> >>> defended its right “to cling to its conviction that vigorous prose is
> >>> >>> a virtue and that blind people can stand to read one of the
> >>> >>> adjectives
> >>> >>> that describe them before they arrive at the noun”
> >>> >>> (www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0903/bm090308.htm).
> >>> >>> “Blind people we are, and we are content to be described as such.”
> >>> >>> Many people with diabetes are also surprised to learn that the word
> >>> >>> “diabetic” is now considered taboo. Who turned it into a moniker non
> >>> >>> grata? Not people with diabetes, apparently. Type “diabetic” and
> >>> >>> “tattoo” into Google Images and you’ll find thousands of people with
> >>> >>> the condition who have the word permanently inked on their skin. One
> >>> >>> of those people is Tanyss Christie, a mother of two from Chilliwack,
> >>> >>> British Columbia, who has “diabetic” tattooed on her inner left wrist
> >>> >>> in a style similar to a MedicAlert bracelet. Would she be upset if
> >>> >>> someone called her a diabetic?“No, I wouldn’t be offended,” Christie
> >>> >>> writes in an email. “Diabetes is me and who I am and I don’t need to
> >>> >>> hide that; I am a diabetic and have been for 29 years. I say it
> >>> >>> strong
> >>> >>> because I survived such a hard disease and hope to [for] many more
> >>> >>> years.”
> >>> >>> The topic of person-first language seems to stir particularly heated
> >>> >>> debate among people affected by autism. In general, parents of
> >>> >>> children with autism appear to prefer person-first language. Some
> >>> >>> even
> >>> >>> suggest that saying “autistic child” is not much better than
> >>> >>> referring
> >>> >>> to someone with cancer as a “cancerous person.” Many adults with
> >>> >>> autism, however, believe that autism is central to their identity and
> >>> >>> prefer to use terms such as “autistic person.” This has been called
> >>> >>> identify-first language.Person-first language implies that autism can
> >>> >>> be separated from the person, which simply isn’t true, according to
> >>> >>> Jim Sinclair, an adult with autism who cofounded the Autism Network
> >>> >>> International. In a widely circulated essay, Sinclair wrote that
> >>> >>> autism is such an essential feature of his being that to describe
> >>> >>> himself as a person with autism would be akin to calling a parent a
> >>> >>> “person with offspring” or calling a man a person “with maleness”
> >>> >>> (www.cafemom.com/journals/read/436505). Attempting to separate autism
> >>> >>> from personhood also “suggests that autism is something bad — so bad
> >>> >>> that it isn’t even consistent with being a person.”
> >>> >>> Then there are those who take a more moderate position, varying their
> >>> >>> language according to their audience so that focus remains on their
> >>> >>> message rather than how it’s delivered. This is the approach taken by
> >>> >>> Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg, a writer who chronicles her “journeys with
> >>> >>> autism” on her blog (www.journeyswithautism.com).“I will use
> >>> >>> person-first (i.e. person with autism) and identity-first (i.e
> >>> >>> autistic person) language interchangeably, partly for the sake of
> >>> >>> variety, and partly to resist the ideologues on both sides. I will
> >>> >>> also vary my language to suit my audience. For example, if I’m
> >>> >>> talking
> >>> >>> with people who prefer identity-first language, I will use it. If I
> >>> >>> am
> >>> >>> talking to people who prefer person-first language, I will use it. If
> >>> >>> I am talking to a mixed group, I will likely mix my terminology,”
> >>> >>> Cohen-Rottenberg writes in an email. “I find that people’s feelings
> >>> >>> can run so high regarding language that, even if I find person-first
> >>> >>> language very problematic, I’ll use it with people who favor it so
> >>> >>> that we don’t end up getting derailed into language discussions and
> >>> >>> away from the issue at hand.”Editor’s note: First of a multipart
> >>> >>> series.Part II: Person-first language: What it means to be a
> >>> >>> “person”(www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4322).Part III:
> >>> >>> Person-first language: Laudable cause, horrible
> >>> >>> prose(www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4338).Facebook Google+
> >>> >>> LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon TwitterWhat's this?Responses to this
> >>> >>> articleMaria Z GittaDo we really need to ask 'to what effect'?CMAJ
> >>> >>> published online November 7, 2012Full Text
> >>> >>> ________________End of message________________
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> >>> >>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> >>> >>> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> >>> >>> disability-research-request at jiscmail.ac.uk
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Archives and tools are located at:
> >>> >>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
> >>> >>> page.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> >>> nabs-l:
> >>> >>> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/brandonkeithbiggs%40gmail.com
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> >>> nabs-l:
> >>> >>> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> nabs-l mailing list
> >>> >> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> >> nabs-l:
> >>> >> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > nabs-l mailing list
> >>> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> > nabs-l:
> >>> > 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/bookwormahb%40earthlink.net
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > nabs-l mailing list
> >>> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> > nabs-l:
> >>> > 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> nabs-l:
> >>> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/carlymih%40comcast.net
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nabs-l mailing list
> >> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> nabs-l:
> >> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nabs-l mailing list
> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > nabs-l:
> > 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/carlymih%40comcast.net