[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
Constance Canode
satin-bear at sbcglobal.net
Thu Apr 14 23:06:07 UTC 2011
I remember back in my hippie days, we used to say
blind is beautiful, and so it is. I am a person
who happens to be blind. I am certainly not
ashamed of that or who I am, as none of us should
be. We are not handi-capable, oh how I hate that
word, or in my opinion, I am not visually
impaired. How can something that doesn't exist
for me personally be impaired. Just be blind and
be proud. I like the old name better also. This
new one just doesn't make sense to me.
At 02:32 PM 4/14/2011, you wrote:
>This is just my opinion, but I liked RFB&D
>better. Maybe I am just use to the name. I don't
>understand why the word blind is so bad to
>others. Thank you, Gloria Whipple Corresponding
>Secretary Inland Empire chapter nfb of WA
>-----Original Message----- From:
>nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>[mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
>Of Cindy Handel Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011
>11:53 To: NFB Talk Mailing List Subject: Re:
>[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls Maybe
>people would learn to feel better about
>themselves if they weren't encouraged to avoid
>the word "blind" all the time. It's really not
>a dirty word, and organizations who purportedly
>serve us should learn to say it. It's just five
>little letters and very well describes the
>portion of the population they have served, in
>the past. Not sure what they're doing now,
>since they don't want to use the word "blind",
>and would rather use Learning Ally, which is
>pretty vague, as far as I'm concerned. Cindy
>----- Original Message ----- From: "John Heim"
><john at johnheim.net> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List"
><nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> Sent: Thursday, April 14,
>2011 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning
>Ally and PC Pitfalls I don't know what the big
>deal about using PC language is. I don't see why
>anybody would care if RFBD changes its name. If
>African Americans want to be called African
>Americans from now on, that's fine by me. If a
>woman refers to herself as over weight instead
>of obese, what's wrong with that? This whole PC
>language thing is a tempest in a teapot dreamed
>up by people who like to mind other people's
>business. The surest way to tell people that
>you're more interested in your own convenience
>than their feelings is to refuse to use whatever
>label they've chosen for themselves. Its not
>going to hurt you to call African Americans by
>that name if that's what they want. It might not
>change anything but it won't hurt you either.
>Just do it and quit whining. ----- Original
>Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter"
><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com> To: "NFB Talk Mailing
>List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> Sent: Thursday,
>April 14, 2011 6:39 AM Subject: Re: [nfb-talk]
>Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls > Frankly, I
>don’t think it matters one bit what language
>they use—it does > not andd will never change
>people’s ideas in an of itself. We all know >
>what "special" means (with quotes) in "special"
>education right? And > "exceptional" (again
>with quotes) in "exceptional" learner fixed this
>how? > It didn’t. It never will. > > The
>conflict-adverse (and usually
>progressively-minded) people behind such >
>things seem to be under the impression that if
>you reduce language that > that which cannot
>possibly be offensive, then nobody will ever
>be > offended. Yet I have seen people refer to
>people with disabilities as > "crippled and
>handicapped folks" and do so with the utmost
>respect, > preserving our dignity as few ever
>bother to do. > > I have already demonstrated
>twice the converse. No matter what term you >
>apply, if the user of that term has the intent
>of saying something that is > offensive, they
>will do it. > > No problem has ever been solved
>by redefining language. Attempts to do so > are
>at best panicked attempts to hide a problem
>someone can’t figure out > how to solve. At
>worst, redefining language is used as a willful
>and > malicious means of redefining an argument
>to allow for something that > would be seen as
>reprehensible in plain language. > > Take
>blatant and unabashed discrimination against a
>blind college student > on the basis of his
>disability—tto the extreme of willful sabotage
>of field > experience work. Astonishing,
>disgusting, and it happens far more than > any
>of us would like to admit, right? > > Let’s
>redefine some language. > > A blind person is
>simply a diverse learner. We welcome
>diversity! Our > campus and the program in
>question feature a very diverse background of >
>students! Of course there are a few extreme
>cases where someone who is > clearly not cut out
>for a given field, despite solid grades,
>enthusiasm, > and skill both innate and
>acquired. In such cases, the faculty feel it
>is > their duty to act as gatekeepers to the
>profession, particularly when the > profession
>is one in which there might be some risk. You
>understand our > caution, yes? > > The fact that
>up until the time in question not one single
>person with a > disability has ever successfully
>completed the program and gone on to be >
>employed in the field in at least a six year
>time span I am aware of in > this case proves
>nothing, right? There are a handful of such
>students > every year. They fail out of the
>program, or they just can’t seem to get >
>hired they finish. > > Of course, nobody will
>call it what it is, because if you rock the
>boat, > you could wind up in trouble with the
>unions—er, I mean, with your > colleagues. Even
>colleaguees who are generally disliked by
>most and > known to be doing wrong to
>all. Solidarity! So nobody is willing to >
>stand up and say, "These two people actively
>discussed how to ensure that > this student
>fails the program," even if they will report
>such details > privately. > > So people go about
>pretending there is nothing to see. We don’t
>look too > deeply, because we don’t like what
>we will find. All it takes to cover > the whole
>thing up is a simple facade. Just redefine a
>few words and you > don’t even have to
>lie. > > But even when it isn’t something that
>onerous, it still is an attempt to > hide a
>problem. I’ve heard that "Learning Ally" came
>about because people > who are dyslexic don’t
>want to be classified as having a
>disability. But > they want their disability to
>be accommodated, they just don’t want to >
>have to admit they’ve got one. > > Why? What
>is so wrong with having a disability? In the
>Federation, we > understand this one quite
>well. It’s the reason our training centers
>don’t > allow people to use folding canes they
>can stuff out of sight at a moment’s > notice
>(aside from the innate superiority of a rigid
>cane when actively > using one and how that
>superiority aids in training.) People are
>ashamed > of their disability, and that is the
>problem. Does changing the language > allow
>them to NOT be ashamed? No, it simply allows
>them to pretend, as > long as everyone else goes
>along with the game. > > But you ARE blind. And
>people ARE going to notice. Either that or
>else > they’re not going to know, and instead
>they’re going to just think you’re >
>stupid. Same thing with dyslexia. As a
>dyslexic myself, I would rather > people think I
>was dyslexic than stupid. Of course, we
>didn’t know about > my dyslexia until I was an
>adult because people had previously chalked my >
>difficulties up to blindness and the use of
>visual techniques (which were > all I learned as
>a child.) > > Changing the language doesn’t
>fix the problem, it only hides it. > >
>Joseph > > (If this isn’t my most coherent
>email ever, I’m up past my bedtime.) > > On
>Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:57:19AM -0700, Gloria
>Whipple wrote: >>Ryan, >> >>I like your friends
>and what they had to say. >> >>I hate political
>corrections! >> >>Thanks for
>sharing! >> >> >>Gloria Whipple >>Corresponding
>Secretary >>Inland Empire chapter >>nfb of
>WA >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From:
>nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>[mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf
>Of Ryan O >>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011
>11:37 >>To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List' >>Subject:
>[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls >> >>Hi
>all. The recent name change of Recordings For
>the Blind and Dyslexic >>has >>fostered a very
>interesting debate on a friend's facebook page.
>It put me >>in >>mind of a speech by Dr.
>Jernigan some years ago. I decided to post some
>of >>the debate here and see what others
>think. >> >>I will begin by posting the release
>from RFB&D, followed by some random >>comments
>from my friend's Facebook page. Since I am
>posting the comments >>without the permission of
>the various authors, I am changing their
>name. >> >>Here is the press release from
>RFB&D. >> >>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic -
>Learning Ally For Blind Students >> April 12th,
>2011 >>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
>(RFB&D), a 63-year old nonprofit >>organization
>serving over 300,000 individuals across the U.S.
>with >>learning >>differences and reading
>disabilities, announced that it has
>officially >>changed its name to Learning AllyT-
>effective April 11, 2011. >> >>The new name is
>accompanied by a tagline - Making reading
>accessible for >>allT - and was selected after
>months of research and focus groups
>were >>conducted with hundreds of RFB&D student
>members, parents, volunteers, >>education
>professionals and other
>stakeholders. >> >>"Changing the name of a
>long-established national institution such
>as >>RFB&D >>is not something we entered into
>lightly," says Andrew Friedman,
>Learning >>Ally's President and CEO. "Our
>members themselves were the key driver of >>this
>transformation. For one thing, our mix of users
>today includes >>individuals with diverse
>learning differences that are outside the
>scope >>of >>our former name. >> >>"Most
>important of all," adds Friedman, "our members
>have expressed loud >>and >>clear that they
>don't wish to be labeled or typecast with a
>specific >>'disability.' They just want the same
>opportunities to succeed that others >>enjoy.
>Our new name goes to the heart of supporting
>their desire to learn >>and
>achieve." >> >>Background: Recording for the
>Blind was founded in 1948, with a mission
>to >>provide equal access to the printed word
>for veterans and others with >>blindness and
>visual impairment. Early volunteers recorded
>textbooks onto >>vinyl discs and tape reels.
>During the 1990s, RFB extended its mission
>to >>include access for people with dyslexia and
>learning disabilities, and >>changed its name to
>RFB&D. As its library grew to become the largest
>of >>its >>kind in the world, RFB&D made
>audiobooks accessible on cassettes, CDs
>and >>downloadable formats with extensive
>navigation capabilities for students >>with
>reading disabilities. Users accessed their books
>with specialized >>assistive technology devices
>from a variety of vendors. >> >>In 2010, RFB&D
>embraced the latest mainstream technology,
>making its >>content >>accessible on Mac and
>Windows computers for users at home or in
>school. >>And >>in February 2011, a new
>application was released enabling its
>entire >>library >>of downloadable audiobooks to
>be played on Apple iOS devices including
>the >>iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. All of this
>is good news for the widening >>base >>of
>students, parents, teachers and schools that
>Learning Ally serves. >> >>"We truly cherish the
>values of our founders and stand on the
>solid >>foundation built by countless RFB&D
>volunteers and donors," says Andrew >>Friedman.
>Today we recognize that as many as one in five
>individuals learn >>differently. Now as Learning
>Ally, we continue to support our blind
>and >>dyslexic members, while positioning the
>organization to be even more >>inclusive - as an
>advocate and friend to people for whom access
>and >>reading >>are barriers to
>learning." >> >>About Learning
>AllyT >> >>Founded in 1948 as Recording for the
>Blind, Learning Ally serves more than >>300,000
>K-12, college and graduate students, as well as
>veterans and >>lifelong learners - all of whom
>cannot read standard print due
>to >>blindness, >>visual impairment, dyslexia,
>or other learning disabilities.
>Learning >>Ally's >>collection of more than
>65,000 digitally recorded textbooks and
>literature >>titles - delivered through internet
>downloads and various assistive >>technology
>devices - is the largest of its kind in the
>world. More than >>6,000 volunteers across the
>U.S. help to record and process
>the >>educational >>materials, which students
>rely on to achieve academic and
>professional >>success. Learning Ally, a 501(c)3
>nonprofit, is funded by grants from the >>U.S.
>Department of Education, state and local
>education programs, and the >>generous
>contributions of individuals, foundations and
>corporations. For >>more information, call (866)
>732-3585 or
>visit >>http://www.LearningAlly.org. >> >>>From
>Facebook: >> >>Starbuck >>cannot believe that
>RFB&D is changing their name to, "Learning
>Ally." >>Stupid >>politically correct
>society! >> >>Weatherman >>Politically correct
>or just shorter to say? >> >>Starbuck >>Based on
>their own article about it, I'd say PC. They
>took a very >>roundabout >>way of saying they
>don't like to place labels on people. The B and
>D in >>this >>case standing for blind and
>dyslexic. >> >>Weatherman >>Really? Racial slurs
>are ok then? Sexist remarks are perfectly
>acceptable? >>PC can definitely go overboard and
>I always advocate clarity in >>communication,
>but I think individual groups have a right to
>decide how >>they'd like to be addressed or
>described. >> >>Starbuck >>I dont' think either
>Dana or I are saying that racist/sexist remarks
>are >>all >>right. But when we get so very
>touchy about offending someone, it
>goes >>overboard. People in today's society are
>afraid to use the word, "blind," >>for example.
>I can't tell you the amount of euphimisms I've
>heard for >>that. >>When I refer to someone as
>being black, rather than "African
>American," >>God >>knows I'm not trying to put
>them down. Racism makes me angry, to put
>it >>mildly. But it seems our society is so very
>afraid of stepping on toes now >>that we've
>swung to the other extreme of what you're
>saying. >> >>Weatherman >>I agree with you
>Alicia, and perhaps "we" have swung to far. I
>was >>probably >>causing a bit of trouble :). I
>just don't think being PC should
>be >>outlawed. >>It is rooted in something quite
>sensible. >> >>Hieronymus Bosch >>Weatherman,
>you are right in the fact that pc was probably
>rooted in good >>intentions. But what is it they
>say about the road to hell... >> >>Starbuck and
>I are all too familiar with political
>correctness gone to the >>extreme. Neither she,
>or I, or any blind person I've ever heard of
>or >>encountered asked to be called, "visually
>impaired." Yet, here we are in >>the >>21st
>century, where every agency and service for the
>blind uses the term, >>"visually impaired."
>Where did the term come from? I can't answer it,
>but >>I >>can hazzard an educated guess. The
>sighted professionals in the >>rehabilitation
>field came up with that term to soften the blow
>of >>blindness >>upon the public. But I can tell
>you that the only thing that has
>changed >>in >>my 30 years of living has been
>the language used to address our
>issues. >>People are far more careful about what
>they say and how they say it,
>but >>the >>careful maneuvering through the
>minefield of sensitivity only serves
>to >>high-light the fact that the problems still
>remain. >> >>I'm not a black guy, or gay, or
>female or a lot of things, but
>the >>softening >>of the language over the past
>three decades or so has done nothing
>to >>convince me that political correctness
>serves as a means to foster any >>sort >>of
>meaningful form of dialogue between groups. The
>labels are still there. >>they are just a lot
>more fancy than they used to be. >> >>Perry
>Mason >>Harry, I saw your comment after posting
>my first one. I don't want to >>monopolize this
>topic but had to respond to it. In my
>experience, the >>label >>of visually impaired
>versus blind actually makes a difference.
>When >>interviewing for jobs, or talking with
>professors about accommodations, >>the >>term
>visually impaired seems to get you less
>resistance from them. They >>seem >>to ask fewer
>questions about how you do X, Y, and Z, and seem
>to be more >>willing to trust you when you
>explain that you have the situation
>under >>control. Perhaps this is because the
>term "visually impaired" allows
>them >>to >>think you have more vision than you
>do, but whatever the reason, I
>like >>the >>results. That being said, you know
>I'm not a fan of our ultra PC
>society. >> >>Hieronymus Bosch >>Perry, you are
>making my point for me. If your professors are
>in deed less >>resistent to the term, "visually
>impaired," as opposed to the notion
>of >>you >>being, "blind," then that speaks more
>to their discomfort with your >>disability as a
>whole, rather than the phraseology. >> >>Perry
>Mason >>Harry, >>I don't think we can separate
>people's discomfort with a condition
>from >>the >>way in which it is discussed. The
>terminology you choose when
>talking >>about >>traits you have provides
>important context for others. Specifically,
>it >>helps them interpret the significance and
>quality of that trait to the >>person speaking.
>This is especially true if the audience has
>not >>experienced >>the trait in question
>themselves. Suppose a woman were to say that she
>was >>not slim when discussing her physical
>appearance. Doesn't that have a >>different
>connotation from obese? And if so, can you be
>faulted as a >>listener for coming to a
>different set of conclusions about her
>depending >>on >>the terminology she uses? As a
>hypothetical, this woman is describing
>the >>exact same body with both sets of
>phrases. >>You could argue that this means
>people are more uncomfortable with
>obesity >>than they are with an overweight
>person. I'm sure that's true to
>an >>extent, >>but a lot of people don't know
>what to think before she starts
>talking. >>They >>have no personal experience
>with being heavy. Thus, the next thing to
>do >>is >>to utilize language the speaker
>chooses as a guide for understanding what >>and
>how she thinks about it. Her thoughts then act
>as a guide for the ways >>in which I should
>react accordingly. >>I think this is the same
>with blindness. The word "blind" has a lot
>of >>negative connotation surrounding it, and
>some of it does not have to do >>with >>disabled
>people at all. Examples include being blind
>drunk, being robbed >>blind, blindsided, etc.
>These common expressions do not deal with
>the >>physical condition but are used to discuss
>crappy events in every day >>life. >>Thus, by
>using the term "blind", a speaker is associating
>himself with >>negatives, indicating to others
>that he views his lack of vision as such. >>The
>next logical reaction is to approach the
>condition with fear and >>distrust. >>I
>therefore conclude that phraseology helps people
>decide how >>uncomfortable >>to be or not with
>the actual substantive issues. Granted, it's
>only one >>factor, and we should not use
>language that entirely hides the
>plain >>realities of life. >>Just some food for
>thought. >> >>Hieronymus Bosch >>Perry, once
>again, you have succeeded in making my point for
>me. Ironic >>that >>you are employing fanciful
>wording and logical contortionism to make
>your >>arguments, while all the while
>high-lighting the real problem. To me, this >>is
>the essence of political correctness.
>*grin* >> >>Interesting that you use the example
>of an obese female as a comparison, >>since
>society tends to stigmatize obese women in the
>same way that it >>stigmatizes blind people. A
>woman may choose to refer to herself as
>"not >>slim," "obese," or "fat," but in the end,
>the person she is talking to >>knows >>she is
>overweight, whether he/she is fat or
>not. >> >>You are correct when you say that the
>obese woman has no power over the >>person's
>reaction to her self-description, but the
>cumulative effect of >>her >>condition still has
>an impact on the person in question. He/she
>still >>knows >>that this person is overweight,
>and whether we couch this in harsh
>or >>euphemistic terminology, the end result is
>the same. The imagery >>associated >>with
>obesity; ugliness, gluttony, laziness, still
>lingers. The fat jokes >>still remain, but now
>they are whispered and snickered at privately
>rather >>than being trumpeted in public. No, I
>can't experience life as a fat lady, >>but I can
>witness the societal evidence around me that
>indicates that she >>is >>still viewed with
>contempt. >> >>Life is the same when you are
>blind. You can contort yourself to
>more >>easily >>operate within the comfort level
>of your professor, potential mate
>or >>perspective employer, but in the end, did
>it make a difference in being >>hired whether
>you used the word, "blind," or "visually
>impaired?" Most >>blind >>people will answer
>with a resounding, "no!" That is evidence enough
>to >>illustrate the fact that political
>correctness has not helped us get where >>we
>need to be. >> >>Perry Mason >>Hi Harry, >>In
>your previous message, you wrote something that
>I want to respond to. >>"A woman may choose to
>refer to herself as "not slim," "obese," or
>"fat," >>but in the end, the person she is
>talking to knows she is overweight, >>whether
>he/she is fat or not. This is correct, but the
>goal was never to >>hide her weight issue. It
>was, instead, to frame it in a less
>threatening >>and negative light. Next, you
>write: You are correct when you say that
>the >>obese woman has no power over the person's
>reaction to her >>self-description, >>but the
>cumulative effect of her condition still has an
>impact on the >>person >>in question. He/she
>still knows that this person is overweight,
>and >>whether >>we couch this in harsh or
>euphemistic terminology, the end result is
>the >>same." I have to disagree with your
>conclusion. Your own language >>indicates >>how
>you feel about yourself. This, in turn, effects
>how others perceive >>you >>and treat you. So,
>if a woman says "I'm obese", and another says "I
>know >>I'm >>overweight or not thin"," they are
>likely to get different sociological >>reactions
>from their peers and employers. Yes, it's
>correct that others >>will >>still joke about
>this physical imperfection. Everything else can
>be made >>into a joke, so obesity doesn't escape
>that unfortunate fact. There's one >>more aspect
>I wanted to respond to. In the last line of your
>message, you >>talk about jokes being whispered
>to one another, instead of trumpetted
>in >>public. You seem to say that this, too,
>winds up with the same cumulative >>effect. I'm
>not sure this is the case either. If someone
>knows they will >>get >>in hot water by making
>fat jokes, they will be careful who they say it
>to. >>We still have bullies, but this
>potentially means that others, who
>have >>not >>yet made their minds up about how
>to treat the woman in question won't get >>the
>idea that it's acceptable and socially
>appropriate to laugh at her. >>Instead, she has
>a better chance of introducing herself,
>humanizing her >>and >>the condition, and being
>treated more normally by many people. She
>will >>not >>convince the prick who would have
>laughed openly in our non PC
>society, >>but >>she very well could influence
>those not contaminated by such drivel if
>it >>was not openly allowed. You may think that
>people are going to do what >>they >>want,
>regardless of regulations and any degree of
>political correctness. >>However, people are
>astoundingly seceptable to peer pressure, even
>as >>adults. In fact, a sociologist conducted an
>experiment where a person in >>authority
>commanded people to shock a volunteer who made
>mistakes >>completing >>a task. Each time a
>mistake was made, the voltage was increased.
>Even as >>high as 320 volts, nearly three
>quarters of people pushed the
>button, >>simply >>because someone else said so.
>Can you imagine this effect if we
>allowed >>jokes about those we perceive as ugly
>to be trumpetted? It would be
>like >>the >>Milgram effect on steroids. Can
>political correctness hide one's condition >>and
>perceived flawes? No it cannot. However, I am of
>the belief that it >>does >>change the ways
>others view you and them. >> >>Hieronymus
>Bosch >>Perry, it appears we're going to have to
>agree to disagree about this >>issue. >>You are
>approaching it from an idealistic perspective,
>while I am viewing >>it >>from a more practical
>standpoint. Your analogy with the electroshock
>study >>is interesting, but ultimately, it only
>amounts to a hypothetical that can >>never be
>quantified in a social framework. >> >>My
>original premise was that political correctness
>has not aided the blind >>in our quest to
>overcome many of the stereotypes facing us.
>Our >>staggeringly >>and consistently high
>unemployment rate bolsters my argument. I don't
>know >>what your current employment situation
>is, but I look forward to >>revisiting >>this
>debate with you in a decade or so. >> >>Cheers,
>my
>friend. >> >> >>_________________________________
>______________ >>nfb-talk mailing
>list >>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.or
>g/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org >>To
>unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info
>for >>nfb-talk: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/o
>ptions/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webba >>n
>d.com >> >> >>___________________________________
>____________ >>nfb-talk mailing
>list >>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.or
>g/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org >>To
>unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info
>for >>nfb-talk: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/o
>ptions/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
> > >
>_______________________________________________ >
> nfb-talk mailing list > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org >
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or
>get your account info for > nfb-talk: >
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/cindy425%40verizon.net
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webband.com
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/satin-bear%40sbcglobal.net
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list