[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

[ckrugman at sbcglobal.net]

not only the NFB have a constitution for the whole organization each chapter 
and affiliate has one that is part of a chapterr's chartering process.
Chuck
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
To: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>; "NFB Talk Mailing List" 
<nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


> Well, I didn't know the nfb had a constitution.
> Anyway, the provision to alter the constitution was made in the form of
> amendments.  That has been used in many instances, often to grant people
> rights that they should have already had in the first place if people
> interpreted the constitution in the right way.
> I don't think my understanding the American history is any more flawed 
> than
> yours.  I used the phrase "King of America" as an extreme example of
> socialism progressing to fascism because of ignoring the rights granted in
> the constitution.  I think when a leader tries to take too many liberties
> with the basics of the constitution, we have to start applying the checks
> and balances to rein him/her in.  As for Jefferson, I would like to see 
> the
> quote. What book do I find that in?  There has been much written about
> Jefferson in recent years, some political, religious, family (including
> multiracial descendents) etc etc.  It wouldn't surprise me if he made that
> statement but I haven't run across it.
> As for worshipping the founding fathers, really -- where did I say yyou
> should do that?
> They were just men in a pivotal time in human history, in a position to
> design a new government. Some believe they were inspired, but no one
> worships them. So you're safe...*smild*
> --le
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
> To: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>; "NFB Talk Mailing List"
> <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get 
> labeled
>
>
> Well, first of all, I was talking about the NFB, not the United States
> Constitution.
>
> But anyway, I think you need to study your history a little bit more 
> there,
> buddy. Thomas Jefferson wanted the Constitution to expire every 30 years.
> Virginia made altering the Constitution a condition for ratification. In
> other words, before the Constitution was even ratified, it was being
> modified. Do the words "when a government becomes destructive to these 
> ends,
> it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it" ring a bell? 
> That's
> (perhaps not verbatim) from the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Nothing I've said would allow anyone to declare themselves King of 
> America.
> I don't know where you got that from but it doesn't follow from anything
> I've said.
>
> The founding fathers would be dismayed and mystified by our tendency to
> reference them whenever trying to make our own course. I don't know if Dr.
> Jernigan would feel that same way. But either way, I am not going to bow
> down to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Kenneth Jernigan or anybody else 
> when
> I make up my mind as to the proper course. I'll respect their opinions but
> not worship them.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get 
> labeled
>
>
>> John, I think most would agree that the constitution is a bit more
>> important
>> to conform to than incidental laws and prior court rulings.  There has to
>> be
>> a place where people are forced to stop when they are clearly not
>> supported
>> in their views by a large part of the population, otherwise someone could
>> come along and declare himself king of America, which is clearly unwise.
>> You
>> are attacking the form of government, which is intended to provide checks
>> and balances and provide rights for all its citizens.  It is truely an
>> ugly
>> mark on our history that a minority of people in the south were legal
>> slave
>> owners for a time, and were willing to resort to violence to preserve
>> "states rights" which at that time meant providing for slavery.  It is
>> also
>> tragic that true legal rights have taken so long to be extended to our
>> black
>> citizens.  But the system did change, and the constitution held.  I was
>> talking to a friend about this a while back and his comment was that when
>> you think of it, it is really amazing how long the constitution has
>> lasted,
>> through all the radical changes that have passed since its inception.
>> Anyway, you are a believer in big government. I won't fight that. I do
>> oppose changing or removing some of the checks and balances such as line
>> item veto (which is what every president has wanted, but it never gets
>> voted
>> in -- fortunately) or any other change that would undermine the 
>> foundation
>> of our government.
>> Bush is one who blurred the lines when he turned the CIA on American
>> citizens for the purpose of catching terrorists.  Obama is also 
>> attempting
>> to blur the lines of power by changing the relationship between private
>> business and government, and speaking out against the power of the 
>> supreme
>> court.
>> Both sides have examples of fraud.
>> As long as people are running the government, it's going to be imperfect,
>> but it's the best in most all cases.
>> Off that soapbox.  Fife can stop playing.
>> Take care.
>> --le
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
>> labeled
>>
>>
>> Its foolish to stick to a principle just because its what the founders
>> believed. We have a right to do what works. In fact, we have a
>> responsibility to change things if we belive the old ways aren't
>> working. If you have reason to believe the principles enunciated in
>> 1950 are still the best, I'd be interested in hearing them. But just
>> that they are the original principles has little weight with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:10 PM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly my sentiment.  The NFB was founded on the principle that the
>>> blind deserve the chance to be out of distress, and that we sure
>>> didn't have much hope for the government getting us out of it.  That
>>> is no less true today.
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 07:44:58AM -0500, Ray Foret Jr wrote:
>>>> In short, "We are willing to help you in distress, but not out of
>>>> it.".  I"m quoting here from the NFB 1952 banquet speech.  So
>>>> there.  IF you need proof, there you go.  Straight from the founder
>>>> himself via a speech he made in 1952.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Now a proud Mac user!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> e-mail:
>>>> rforetjr at comcast dot net
>>>> skype:
>>>> barefootedray
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:25 AM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You just go and fill out your forms in triplicate, and wait thirty
>>>>> minutes for the next available Social Security representative.
>>>>> Remember though, you have the CHOICE to not wait to talk to them
>>>>> and instead go to their website, maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've had enough begging for scraps.  At least the charities give
>>>>> you the dignity of being a person worthy of what they provide,
>>>>> rather than an unwelcome burden to the system who deserves no
>>>>> better than they give you.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record, SSI already has a gradual exchange of benefits for
>>>>> income for an amount that is higher than you will receive for
>>>>> SSI.  It is SSDI that lacks this feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is truly needed is improvement in those efforts to help
>>>>> people in the unenviable position of being quite able to work, but
>>>>> trapped by circumstances (including those imposed by the myriad
>>>>> social support programs), to break free of the forced poverty they
>>>>> are subject to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 06:30:06PM -0400, Wm. Ritchhart wrote:
>>>>>> I think it is important to add to what John is saying as he is
>>>>>> right on
>>>>>> target.  We all need to remember that before the NFB got the
>>>>>> Congress to
>>>>>> grant the blind Social Security, the responsibility fell to
>>>>>> charities and to
>>>>>> the families of the uneducated and unemployed blind.  It did not
>>>>>> work and
>>>>>> that was why there were blind people begging in the streets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is needed are methods that enable the ready for employment
>>>>>> blind person
>>>>>> to move from SSI to work without immediately losing all their SSI
>>>>>> until they
>>>>>> earn an amount that keeps them above the poverty level when the
>>>>>> SSI is
>>>>>> removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second item that is needed is the need to change the
>>>>>> attitudes of the
>>>>>> sighted people who hold the power to hire workers.  These folks
>>>>>> contribute
>>>>>> more to the 70% unemployment rate than anything.  As said
>>>>>> already, until we
>>>>>> solve this problem, everything else is secondary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> ] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of John G. Heim
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:53 AM
>>>>>> To: qubit; NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not
>>>>>> get labeled
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, trying to stay on topic here, there has been a suggestion
>>>>>> that we'd be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> better off without SSI and presumably SSDI. Is it likely that a
>>>>>> private
>>>>>> charity could take the place of those programs? Not very. I can
>>>>>> more or less
>>>>>>
>>>>>> prove that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The poverty level is currently around $15,000. But lets say the
>>>>>> average SSI
>>>>>> or SSDI recipient could get by with $10,000 a year. Now lets
>>>>>> figure the
>>>>>> average employed blind person makes $50,000 a year. That's
>>>>>> probably way high
>>>>>>
>>>>>> too. Now lets say the average blind person with a job would be
>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>> contribute 1% of his income to a program to provide jobs for
>>>>>> unemployed
>>>>>> blind people. That's $500 per year. Would the average blind
>>>>>> person be
>>>>>> willing to pitch in $500 a year for his fellow blind citizens? I
>>>>>> ckind of
>>>>>> doubt it but lets say for the sake of argument that he would.
>>>>>> 10000/500 is
>>>>>> 20. So that still means you'd have to have 20 employed blind
>>>>>> people for
>>>>>> every unemployed blind person.  So the idea of employed blind
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> pitching in to support unemployed blind people doesn't even begin
>>>>>> to work
>>>>>> until the employment rate is 95%.  If it was that high we
>>>>>> wouldn't need the
>>>>>> program in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is basically the same problem Social Security is facing --
>>>>>> too many
>>>>>> recipients and too few contributors. The solution to the SSI
>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>> fairly clear. We will need to raise the age of eligibility and
>>>>>> have a means
>>>>>> test. But there is no way a program for employed blind people to
>>>>>> fund a jobs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> program for unemployed blind people can ever work. The numbers
>>>>>> just arent'
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of what the government does is the same. Its just not
>>>>>> practical to
>>>>>> think that the private sector can take over the functions of the
>>>>>> federal
>>>>>> government. that is a fantasy promoted by libertarians like Ron
>>>>>> Paul.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:05 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not
>>>>>> get labeled
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi -- I may be venturing on thin ice here, but there is one
>>>>>>> thing I worry
>>>>>>> about.  This is not a material problem so much as a mental/
>>>>>>> spiritual one.
>>>>>>> One drawback to government run programs that is more a subjective,
>>>>>>> nonquantifiable one: If you give the government the full
>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> taking care of the needy in the country, it has the effect of
>>>>>>> sweeping
>>>>>>> problems under the rug of "the government is taking care of it"
>>>>>>> -- kind of
>>>>>>> like the SEP invisibility field in the hitchhiker's guide to the
>>>>>>> galaxy
>>>>>>> books--adams fans will know what I'm talking about. SEP stands for
>>>>>>> "someone
>>>>>>> else's problem" and has such a powerful effect on viewers as to
>>>>>>> render an
>>>>>>> object invisible.
>>>>>>> I think that this change will attempt to take the responsibility
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>> out for our neighbors and give it to the government so people
>>>>>>> will be less
>>>>>>> apt to give in times of need.  In particular, if taxes are high,
>>>>>>> they will
>>>>>>> figure they already gave to that cause, and maybe try to give
>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>> but if the government office isn't helping, the person is still
>>>>>>> in need of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> friend or someone to identify the problem so as to get him to
>>>>>>> the right
>>>>>>> government office. and there may not be someone there. You can't
>>>>>>> predefine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> government office for every problem.
>>>>>>> In the case of health care, there is also the question of
>>>>>>> privacy, if on
>>>>>>> huge monolithic government run health agency pays the docs, then
>>>>>>> it will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> easy for people's records to be available for others to view, at
>>>>>>> least for
>>>>>>> government employees. And in a socialistic society, there are a
>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>> government employees...*smile*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess I am playing conservative today.
>>>>>>> Obama's health plan, such as it is, does allow for private medical
>>>>>>> insurers.
>>>>>>> And I think government programs can be a very good thing for
>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>> It's just that the change has me worried.
>>>>>>> Take care.
>>>>>>> --le
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>>>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:32 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lot of money gets wasted no matter who's running a program.
>>>>>>> What makes
>>>>>>> you think a private charity is more efficient than the federal
>>>>>>> government?
>>>>>>> You should check out the salaries made by the leaders of most
>>>>>>> non-profits.
>>>>>>> It is not at all unusual for the President of a non-profit to
>>>>>>> make half a
>>>>>>> million dollars a year. Not to mention the fact that most of our
>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>> programs were created in the first place because private
>>>>>>> charities weren't
>>>>>>> getting it done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its simply a myth that governments can't solve social programs.
>>>>>>> Countries
>>>>>>> like Switzerland and Sweeden have happy, healthy citizens. The
>>>>>>> USA, on the
>>>>>>> other hand, ranks low on just about every measure of health and
>>>>>>> happiness.
>>>>>>> Our infant mortality rate is high, our life expectancy is low, our
>>>>>>> unemployment rate and crime rates are high.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The available evidence would tend to indicate that the United
>>>>>>> States
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> have enough social programs, not too many. Now, you could argue
>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>> reduced tax burden and less government interference makes it
>>>>>>> worthwhile.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> that would be a value judgement. I mean, you could argue that our
>>>>>>> independence is more valuable than living a longer life. But you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>> that government can't solve social programs. There's just no
>>>>>>> evidence for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Amelia Dickerson" <ameliadickerson at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: "Nijat Worley" <nijat1989 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:25 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello-
>>>>>>>> I'm just going to put my two cents in here. I think that when the
>>>>>>>> government does stuff, it ends up swallowing up a lot of money
>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>> wasted. I have spent several months applying for jobs in the
>>>>>>>> federal
>>>>>>>> government and it has been a bit of a comic sketch. At the same
>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>> we have people in our society for whom we need to care, and the
>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>> is that any point in time, most people end up in that position.
>>>>>>>> Ideally, we would privately take care of this on our own- people
>>>>>>>> within a community would rise up and put together their own
>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>> system for their kids and for all of them, we would help people
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> with food when they needed it, doctors and therapists would
>>>>>>>> take on a
>>>>>>>> few patients and clients pro bono at any one time. But until
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> choose to do that over buying that brand new car instead of
>>>>>>>> continuing
>>>>>>>> to drive it even though it is no longer the latest and
>>>>>>>> greatest, we
>>>>>>>> need to have the government programs on which to fall back. That
>>>>>>>> doesn't even address the fact that certain communities have a
>>>>>>>> deficit
>>>>>>>> of such resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At my own church, I am in charge of organizing local community
>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>> activities. We have a solid core of people who give generously of
>>>>>>>> their time and energy and money, but there are others who are
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> much occupied by the things in their own lives and they just
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> really contribute to anything. Fortunately, most will give to
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>> in some form, but there are a lot of causes and people out
>>>>>>>> there to
>>>>>>>> give to. I am personally in my mid 20's and my peers are a
>>>>>>>> notoriously
>>>>>>>> self-centered population. I know some people who meet that
>>>>>>>> discription
>>>>>>>> and others who do not. Honestly, I don't know what you would
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> do in order to try and meet the needs of others. However, as a
>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> with my masters in counseling and with a lot of personal
>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>> working with people who are needy in both an emotional and
>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>> sense, itt is absolutely not as easy as giving them money for
>>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>>> each month. Talk to me one on one if you want to know what it
>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>> like to try and quote unquote "help" someone with schizofrenia
>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>> personality disorder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition, I am currently taking a class on universal media
>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>> at the local state university. The principles of the class have
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> with  making media and web sites accessible to everyone,
>>>>>>>> whether they
>>>>>>>> are using an old computer on a dial up connection, using a smart
>>>>>>>> phone, the latest and greatest computer with whatever internet
>>>>>>>> browser, they are hard of hearing,  or a use a screen reader.
>>>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>> its principles though, I have had to do a lot of self advocacy.
>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> have us learning about java script from on-line clips that do not
>>>>>>>> provide enough information for me to keep track of what is
>>>>>>>> happening
>>>>>>>> in the visual part of the training. Someone asked me to give
>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>> on the web site for the business association of downtown Denver
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> preparation for the AHEAD conference here this summer. It is
>>>>>>>> all in
>>>>>>>> flash, and I was unable to get any content off of it. The
>>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>> association doesn't feel particularly obliged to change their
>>>>>>>> web site
>>>>>>>> at all, even if it also means that people out for the night
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> pull up their site on a smart phone. The conservative principle
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> that economic forces will convince them to change it, but they
>>>>>>>> aare
>>>>>>>> not yet terribly interested. Along the same lines, the web
>>>>>>>> sites at CU
>>>>>>>> are often times poorly designed to the extent of decreasing
>>>>>>>> accessibility, but as a whole group of sites are looking at being
>>>>>>>> redesigned in the next couple of years, the man in charge of it
>>>>>>>> doesn't know the first thing about concepts such as the W3
>>>>>>>> standards.
>>>>>>>> I met with him and showed him a bit about what makes his
>>>>>>>> current site
>>>>>>>> that he manages difficult to navigate with a screen reader.
>>>>>>>> Maybe he
>>>>>>>> will be motivated to learn more, butthus far people outside of
>>>>>>>> disability services at the university have been pretty
>>>>>>>> apathetic with
>>>>>>>> regards to making accessibility improvements to sites. All of
>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>> just to say that I don't tend to find that the best ideas win
>>>>>>>> out; too
>>>>>>>> many people are caught up in the concept of how things have
>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>> been done and "it works for me, so it's fine."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With all of this having been said, I vote we stick with putting
>>>>>>>> concepts out there without needing to label them as being part
>>>>>>>> of one
>>>>>>>> group or another. I am all for innovation, change, and
>>>>>>>> progress. No
>>>>>>>> political group gets to lay claim to those words and my use of
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> does not put me in any one group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amelia
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Amelia Dickerson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What counts can't always be counted, and what can be counted
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> always count.
>>>>>>>> Albert Einstein
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org