[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls

Thu Apr 14 23:53:03 UTC 2011

Hi Constance,

I agree with you all of the way!

I am also proud to be blind!

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 Constance Canode
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 16:06
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls

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 
>donâ€™t think it matters one bit what language 
>they use—it does > not andd will never change 
>peopleâ€™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 didnâ€™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 canâ€™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? > > Letâ€™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 canâ€™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 donâ€™t 
>look too > deeply, because we donâ€™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 > donâ€™t even have to 
>lie. > > But even when it isnâ€™t something that 
>onerous, it still is an attempt to > hide a 
>problem.  Iâ€™ve heard that "Learning Ally" came 
>about because people > who are dyslexic donâ€™t 
>want to be classified as having a 
>disability.  But > they want their disability to 
>be accommodated, they just donâ€™t want to > 
>have to admit theyâ€™ve got one. > > Why?  What 
>is so wrong with having a disability?  In the 
>Federation, we > understand this one quite 
>well.  Itâ€™s the reason our training centers 
>donâ€™t > allow people to use folding canes they 
>can stuff out of sight at a momentâ€™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 > theyâ€™re not going to know, and instead 
>theyâ€™re going to just think youâ€™re > 
>stupid.  Same thing with dyslexia.  As a 
>dyslexic myself, I would rather > people think I 
>was dyslexic than stupid.  Of course, we 
>didnâ€™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 doesnâ€™t 
>fix the problem, it only hides it. > > 
>Joseph > > (If this isnâ€™t my most coherent 
>email ever, Iâ€™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

_______________________________________________
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