[nagdu] Victim or Advocate?

[Doug Parisian]

Marion, of exactly what are you trying to convince me anyway?

I supposed I could dig up my original message (probably deleted by now) and 
run an in depth word by word analysis and apply all possible interpretations 
in an attempt to comprehend some of this way over the top nonsensical 
reaction.

Despite not walling in the blindness and/or disabled ghetto industry, I have 
worked with dogs for the past 35 years and actually taken discriminators and 
other such trash to court, and won too.  My concern is that there are folks 
who as I said both in my first message and repeat now, are simply determined 
to find a way to play victim.  If the shoe fits, wear it, if not, discard it 
and move on.

And, wasn't your NFB extremely anti-dog under the leadership of some former 
unfortunate soul who mostly milked the blind followers for his own 
aggrandisement and self glorification.  But then, I suppose marrying women 
into slavery looks better, according to his espoused beliefs, than the 
dignity of a well managed dog guide, go figure.

Doug: Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, I'm going to the garden to eat 
worms!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion Gwizdala" <blind411 at verizon.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Victim or Advocate?


> Doug,
>    I appreciate your message. I would like to share an experience I had 
> with a police officer working extra duty. Some friends of mine and I went 
> to the dog track, I with my guide dog. This police officer advised me that 
> I could not bring my dog into the facility because "it would distract the 
> other dogs on the track". Though it sounds reasonable, it is illogical. 
> Racing dogs are trained to chase the little rabbit (Rusty) and there are 
> seven other dogs racing along side. Furthermore, there are hundreds, 
> perhaps thousands, of screaming gamblers in the stands. To believe that 
> one dog would cause a distraction is unreasonable.
>    After I presented these arguments to the police officer, I invoked 
> Florida law. (Florida has criminal remedies for discrimination.) I was 
> told that law did not apply in this case, as the facility was a para 
> mutual. I called the watch Commander and spent 30 minutes trying to 
> convince him this was a violation of the law. He eventually contacted the 
> race track whose manager told him service dogs were allowed. It just so 
> happened that an inspector from the Department of Agriculture which 
> regulates dog and horse racing facilities was on-site doing an inspection!
>    The end result was that all of the members of my party were given free 
> admission and two free drinks. Unfortunately, no winning tickets, though! 
> The police officer was suspended for five days without pay.
>    There are those places that believe the law does not apply in their 
> circumstances and may have what sounds like very reasonable justifications 
> for this belief. An informed consumer is the best advocate. This is the 
> reason NAGDU has our hotline and strives to educate others about their 
> rights and responsibilities.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Doug Parisian" <eggmann at shaw.ca>
> To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Victim or Advocate?
>
>
>> Mostly correct; service animal control is very often the real issue.  We 
>> need to understand that there are situations where the dog, even if it's 
>> name is Feefee, can be a disturbance and possibly more than a little 
>> upset to other animals.  Sounds like that fishy place might have been one 
>> of those situations.  If the dog were not in the water with the displayed 
>> (tortured) creatures, then there is no issue and the keepers of the 
>> aquatic paradise are way beyond the pale.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Sheila Leigland" <sleigland at bresnan.net>
>> To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Victim or Advocate?
>>
>>
>>> Hi cindy unfortunately I wrote that post before checking it out 
>>> thorougly because I'm in agreement with you and marion about all of 
>>> this. The only thing I was speaking to was that a handler is responsible 
>>> for his or her dog's behavior which I thought that was what doug was 
>>> speaking about. I appoligize or the misunderstanding. I don't want 
>>> service dogs barred from anywhere the public is allowed. In some ways it 
>>> bothers me that churches are for example exempted from the law because 
>>> the public is allowed in them. To me it doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> Sheila Leiglan d
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nagdu mailing list
>>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>> nagdu:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/eggmann%40shaw.ca
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nagdu:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/eggmann%40shaw.ca
>