[nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal reportfrom ChairmanGordon Gund

Tue Apr 26 14:38:23 UTC 2011

Well, the point is that its not me that is the stubborn one here. Its you.

What would it take to get you to change your mind, Mike? You or Joseph or 
Gloria or Constance?  It could hardly be possible for it to be more clear 
that the NFB was wrong on the issue of currency being discrimatory. Yet, you 
are not willing to budge even the slightest bit on that issue.

The NFB argued that the ACB lawsuit was likely to fail. It didn't. Are you 
willing to admit you were wrong about that? The NFB called the ACB lawsuit a 
"publicity stunt". Are you willing to admit that was a mistake?The 21st 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act has restored the 
requirements for a certain number of hours of DVS on the four major networks 
each week. So an act of Congress has said that the NFB was wrong on that 
issue. Are you willing to concede that one?

The point is that it is truely unfair for people to criticize me for 
continuing to harp on these issues when the people on this list and the NFB 
itself is so very unwilling to budge even the slightest bit on any of these 
issues.  TJC keeps criticizing me for saying that I have all the facts on my 
side. Yet, what else am I to do when a federal judge, who' job is to decide 
things like discrimination listens carefully to days and days of testimony 
by the experts in the field, decides the NFB is wrong, and yet, you people 
and the NFB itself, still insists its right?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal reportfrom 
ChairmanGordon Gund

> John:
>
> I am going to forebear from entering the discussion further except to say
> that just because Judge Roberts ruled on a case, that doesn't make it
> "right" -- whatever that might mean.  It *does* make it the law of the 
> land
> -- at least in that Federal district.  NFB can disagree with the decision 
> as
> can any individual.  But we acknowledge that the decision stands and it
> wasn't worth taking our opposition all the way through the appellate
> process.  In fact, we (and I suppose ACB also) are working with the Bureau
> of Printing and Engraving to come up with viable tactily-identifiable
> currency.  But we would have done this anyway; as Steve has told you, we
> said we'd work with the government on the issue by resolution prior to the
> ACB lawsuit.  What we protested was the notion that nonexistence of 
> tactile
> currency was discriminatory treatment of the blind.  You disagree with our
> contention.  That's OK.  But the fact that you disagree with us or that a
> Federal judge ruled on the matter doesn't invalidate our position which is
> that tactile currency may be nice but its absence is not discriminatory
> treatment of the blind.  That opinion doesn't hold water, at least in the 
> DC
> circuit, legally-speaking.  Okay;we go on.
>
> I'll end it there and get on to other things.
>
> Mike Freeman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of John Heim
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:55 AM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
> ChairmanGordon Gund
>
> Well, you've never actually changed your mind on anything either, have you
> Joseph? In my opinion, it is truely ironic for you to accuse me of 
> ignoring
> facts that don't agree with my point of view. Lets examine this particular
> point for a second...
>
> In 2006, Judge James Robertson, in a Federal District Court, decided that
> the currency of the United States discriminates against the blind.  Now,
> this is a federal judge, a lawyer, trained to determine exactly this kind 
> of
> legal question, who after examining all the facts presented over a series 
> of
> weeks by both sides, said that our money discriminates against the blind.
>
> Now, are you willing to acknowledge that the ACB was right? That I was
> right? That our money does discriminate against the blind? Or are you 
> going
> to continue to toe the NFB line?
>
> Documentation on Judge Robertson's decision:
> http://www.acb.org/press061129.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
> ChairmanGordon Gund
>
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I suggest you read the archives of this listserve.  One person
>> continues to discuss the same issues, over and over again.  He is not
>> satisfied with the answers he gets (and he ignores any information
>> that does not fit his anti-Federationist agenda).
>>
>> Removing him is not "censorship", it's troll-hunting.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 02:05:14AM +0000, S Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>If the talk board is constantly being censored by a few people, can
>>>the AFB be solicited to have an uncensored board? If everybody agreed
>>>on everything, we wouldn't need a Talk board, we could call it the
>>>Agree Board! PEN discussion is the well spring of ideas and solutions.
>>>No one here, that I've read could have gotten this far if they had
>>>chosen isolation or denied improvements in technology. If you had, you
>>>would not be on the Net.
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>SRBaker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: john at johnheim.net
>>>> To: nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:45:54 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
>>>> ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>>
>>>> Constance, do you have an open mind on this issue? Could anything I
>>>> say convince you that I am arguing in good faith? I don't believe so.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some facts:
>>>> 1. I have never reacted in anger to anything said about me on this
>>>> list 2. I have never instulted anyone on this list 3. I just took 3
>>>> months where I read but did not respond to the messages on this
>>>> list.
>>>> 4. I provide links and documentation for the things I say on this list.
>>>> 5. Its not true that I never agree with anything the NFB does.
>>>>
>>>> Its true that I have a lot of problems with the policies of the NFB
>>>> and those positions have created a great deal of controversy on this
> list.
>>>> That's one of the reasons you think I hever have anything good to
>>>> say about the NFB, the things we agree on are not controversial.
>>>>
>>>> So anyway, tell me, what can I do to convince you that I'm arguing
>>>> in good faith?
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Constance Canode" <satin-bear at sbcglobal.net>
>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:08 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
>>>> ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I know I will probably get kicked off of the list for this, but so
>>>> >be it.
>>>> >I have an idea. I really believe that John is trying to keep
>>>> >himself in the limelight and is in need of attention. Maybe if we
>>>> >totally ignore his comments, don't give him any attnetion
>>>> >whatsoever, he will do us all a favor and go away. Others have done
>>>> >this in the past and they went away also. Just keep hitting the
>>>> >delete key as I have been doing. I am just tired of reading this
>>>> >stuff.
>>>> >
>>>> > I do hope that everyone had a lovely Easter and too much to eat. I
>>>> > know we certainly did and we haven't had dessert yet.
>>>> > At 05:01 PM 4/24/2011, you wrote:
>>>> >>For the record, I never said any of the following things:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>1. you all want blind people to beg for help from sighted people
>>>> >>2. If you oppose a particular modification to the US currency, you
>>>> >>want blind people to be helpless and dependent, .
>>>> >>3. John's blanket statement is that we oppose doing this
>>>> >>]accessible money] on every level, 4. If you oppose chirping
>>>> >>signals, you want blind people to die crossing streets 5. John's
>>>> >>blanket assertion is that we oppose them [audible walk signals]
>>>> >>universally
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I could probably keep going but I think that's enough. I notice,
>>>> >>Joseph, that you never quote me directly. You never respond to
>>>> >>what I actually say. This current tirade is the result of a
>>>> >>statement I made that the NFB has said that instead of adding
>>>> >>tactile markings to our money, blind people should get sighted
>>>> >>assistance to identify their money. That's a fact. Dr. Maurer said
>>>> >>exactly that in his testimony before Congress.
>>>> >>From
>>>> >>that *factual* statement on my part, you accuse me of saying that
>>>> >>the NFB wants all blind people to be dependent. Well, I simply
>>>> >>didn't say anything of the sort.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I can only hope that more rational, fairer memvers of this list
>>>> >>will see how unfair you are being. You keep accusing me of being
>>>> >>unwilling to acknowledge that the NFB is in favor of walk signals
>>>> >>under some circumstances. Yet I have indeed acknowledged that many
>>>> >>times. So continuing to accuse me of that is simply dishonest.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Likewise, I never said the NFB is totally opposed to accessible 
>>>> >>money.
>>>> >>You're accusing me of being too bullheaded to retract a statement
>>>> >>I never even made. Its insane.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>For the record, I don't think the NFB is totally against audible
>>>> >>walk signals under all circumstances. And I know the NFB has
>>>> >>expressed support for accessible money at times. I'd really
>>>> >>appreciate if you'd stop accusing me of saying otherwise.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter"
>>>> >><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>>>> >>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> >>Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 7:06 AM
>>>> >>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
>>>> >>ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>I just get so tired of the same damned unrelenting straw men
>>>> >>>brought up time and again, anywhere he can wedge these things in,
>>>> >>>whether they make sense or not. He's not been back two weeks and
>>>> >>>already we're all illogical, unethical, and he's back to the
>>>> >>>straw man about how we all want blind people to beg for help from
>>>> >>>sighted people.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>If I have learned one thing from politics, it's that certain
>>>> >>>parties always want to re-frame the argument so that either you
>>>> >>>agree with them, or you are against something that nobody ever
>>>> >>>would be. Either I am right, or you support cruelty to kittens!
>>>> >>>What do kittens have to do with anything?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>So if you listen to John, if you oppose a particular modification
>>>> >>>to the US currency, you want blind people to be helpless and
>>>> >>>dependent, despite the fact that very few are helpless or
>>>> >>>dependent in this matter today, unless it be by choice. Money
>>>> >>>identifiers are now $100, and my cell phone can do it for the
>>>> >>>huge investment of TWO BUCKS. John and I basically agree that
>>>> >>>electronic identifiers are not a suitable solution to the
>>>> >>>problem, and yet I cannot support his baseless attacks (and
>>>> >>>incessant) incendiary claims against the NFB on even this issue.
>>>> >>>Despite
>>>> >>>the NFB's involvement in making the currency accessible, John's
>>>> >>>blanket statement is that we oppose doing this on every level,
>>>> >>>and in THREE YEARS (or longer, I think) he has yet to accept a
>>>> >>>single person's claim to the contrary.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>If you oppose chirping signals, you want blind people to die
>>>> >>>crossing streets. An outright lie. The NFB opposed these things
>>>> >>>because the data showed that they drowned out cars resulting in
>>>> >>>more blind people at risk, not less. Moreover, as of eight or
>>>> >>>nine years ago, the NFB has been actively developing a safe
>>>> >>>replacement for these squawking monsters, and the documented
>>>> >>>position of the organization is that we support their
>>>> >>>installation when they will benefit people. John's blanket
>>>> >>>assertion is that we oppose them universally. Our own resolutions
>>>> >>>to the contrary are not evidence, and nobody can prove otherwise
>>>> >>>to his satisfaction.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>If you oppose blanket mandates for descriptive video without any
>>>> >>>consideration of what kind of descriptive video would be useful
>>>> >>>or in what context, then you are a monster who wants blind people
>>>> >>>to be deprived, uninformed, and miserable. The fact that
>>>> >>>descriptive video doesn't actually exist as any kind of standard
>>>> >>>like closed captioning does and that it's just shoehorned
>>>> >>>haphazardly into SAP channels, that nobody has actually
>>>> >>>determined what to describe or how, or that any effort to mandate
>>>> >>>this now can only serve to prevent a universal and standardized
>>>> >>>solution from emerging is irrelevant. Again we have the blanket
>>>> >>>assertion that the NFB opposes what is good and right, is evil
>>>> >>>for doing so, and not one single argument to the contrary is ever
>>>> >>>afforded even a first thought, let alone a second.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>I could go on, at length, but the fact remains that nobody has
>>>> >>>ever swayed John Heim on a single issue, ever, in the history of
>>>> >>>his presence on this list. We are all just illogical, unethical,
>>>> >>>and he is brutalized and attacked from all sides, asking Dave
>>>> >>>Andrews to sanction anyone who bruises his poor, fragile ego. He
>>>> >>>can dish it out, in spades, in the most incendiary language
>>>> >>>possible, but he can't take his own medicine.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>And more importantly, he won't shut the hell up about any of it.
>>>> >>>He just continues to trash the NFB, and the good people of this
>>>> >>>list. We have not forgotten this, and it should be clear that
>>>> >>>John is immovable on pretty much anything, and that includes a
>>>> >>>fundamental belief that the NFB is harmful to the blind. So then,
>>>> >>>what is he doing here? And why is he permitted to remain, spewing
>>>> >>>this crap day after day?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Joseph
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 08:16:28PM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>> >>>>Too bad that troll doesn't fall off the face of the earth!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>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 T. Joseph Carter
>>>> >>>>Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 17:10
>>>> >>>>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>> >>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report
>>>> >>>>from ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>The troll returns to one of his favorite ACB-inspired arguments
>>>> >>>>about how evil the NFB is. I say again, go away.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Joseph
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 04:24:42PM -0500, John Heim wrote:
>>>> >>>>>Yet, the NFB would have us ask for help to identify our money.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Hi Joseph,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Well done! I like what you had to say.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>My prayers go out to you and I hope you get better and I hope
>>>> >>>>>>you are free from cancer soon.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>All my best,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>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 T. Joseph Carter
>>>> >>>>>>Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 19:01
>>>> >>>>>>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>> >>>>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report
>>>> >>>>>>from ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Gloria,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>I think what it boils down to is that language is a powerful
>>>> >>>>>>thing.
>>>> >>>>>>The words a person uses are less important than the intent
>>>> >>>>>>behind them, but from a choice of certain words over others we
>>>> >>>>>>can infer an intent. I have been battling cancer. This implies
>>>> >>>>>>something about me and my relationship to cancer. I have been
>>>> >>>>>>living with it, and I don't want to be. In fact, I am fighting
>>>> >>>>>>to make it gone, because cancer is a horrible thing.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Am I fighting blindness? Do I suffer from blindness? Am I
>>>> >>>>>>forced to use alternative techniques? Well yes, I do suffer as
>>>> >>>>>>a result of blindness. Not because of blindness itself per se,
>>>> >>>>>>but because of the reaction of others to it who are not blind
>>>> >>>>>>(and a few who are, sadly).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>The refusal to be pigeon-holed into this "sad existence" of
>>>> >>>>>>"suffering because of blindness" is precisely the kind of
>>>> >>>>>>supposed "unethical" behavior the NFB engages in by spreading
>>>> >>>>>>our philosophy.
>>>> >>>>>>It is akin to those during the 60s arguing against the notion
>>>> >>>>>>that they were afflicted somehow with being black. Blindness
>>>> >>>>>>is a bad thing only if you make it be so, and we refuse to
>>>> >>>>>>make it so for ourselves. Moreover, we refuse to allow others
>>>> >>>>>>to force us into that role.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Those who would disparage our efforts to do so are not our
>>>> >>>>>>friends, just as those who would have you look down upon a man
>>>> >>>>>>of color because his skin was darker than, say, mine is. Is he
>>>> >>>>>>somehow worse of because of that? Is he lessened as a man or
>>>> >>>>>>as a person? Does he deserve something less, or for that
>>>> >>>>>>matter anything more, than any other person simply because of
>>>> >>>>>>the color of his skin? Most today would say out of hand that
>>>> >>>>>>he should have the same opportunities anyone would have. No
>>>> >>>>>>more, but certainly no less!
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>The blind deserve the same equality that our more
>>>> >>>>>>sunburn-resistant brothers demanded more than forty years ago.
>>>> >>>>>>In just one generation we have gone from a person of color
>>>> >>>>>>being denied the use of a drinking fountain to electing him to
>>>> >>>>>>the United States presidency.
>>>> >>>>>>If there remains racial inequality, it cannot be because of
>>>> >>>>>>the color of a person's skin anymore. Some individuals may yet
>>>> >>>>>>harbor such attitudes (and I recently observed some of those
>>>> >>>>>>people in a public display, sadly), but society rejects such
>>>> >>>>>>people as undesirable when they are exposed. (And believe me,
>>>> >>>>>>we are exposing them all over YouTube, since the local media
>>>> >>>>>>won't even report it.)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>But what about the blind? The same society who refuses to
>>>> >>>>>>allow a black man to be treated as a second class citizen
>>>> >>>>>>openly condones it when a blind man is treated likewise.
>>>> >>>>>>Disability is one of only two acceptable areas of
>>>> >>>>>>discrimination that remain in this country.
>>>> >>>>>>(The
>>>> >>>>>>other is so far removed from topical for this list that I
>>>> >>>>>>won't discuss it here, much to Dave's relief.)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>We cannot continue to meekly request that we be treated as
>>>> >>>>>>first class citizens. It didn't work in the 1940s, and it
>>>> >>>>>>hasn't worked yet. Only by refusing to be anything less will
>>>> >>>>>>we finally achieve that. Unfortunately, that means getting a
>>>> >>>>>>bit uppity over language that paints us into a corner, as it
>>>> >>>>>>were. I'm not here to be pitied or someone's inspiration. I'm
>>>> >>>>>>here because I've got a job to do, and within the National
>>>> >>>>>>Federation of the Blind, that job is to achieve for myself and
>>>> >>>>>>for all of us the basic rights of first class citizenship
>>>> >>>>>>afforded to anyone else in this country today, regardless of
>>>> >>>>>>their skin color, sexual orientation, and a whole host of
>>>> >>>>>>other things.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>I don't expect any more, but I also won't accept any less.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Joseph
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 09:33:15AM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>James,
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for explaining what I wanted to say about this subject.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>I am glad someone is on my side!
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>> >>>>>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>> >>>>>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>> >>>>>>>nfb of WA
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>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/lady
>>>> >>>>>>gloria%40web
>>>> >>>>ba
>>>> >>>>>>nd.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%40johnh
> eim.
>>>> >>>>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/carte
>>>> >>>>>r.tjoseph%40
>>>> >>>>gmail.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/ladygl
>>>> >>>>oria%40webba
>>>> >>>>nd.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/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%40
>>>> >>>johnheim.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/satin-be
>>>> >>ar%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/john%40j
>>>> > ohnheim.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/srbaker12%
>>>> 40hotmail.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/carter.tjose
>>>ph%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%40johnh
>> eim.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/k7uij%40panix.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
> 