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

John G. Heim jheim at math.wisc.edu
Mon Apr 26 13:36:43 UTC 2010


The Civil War was indeed fought over slavery. This stuff about it being over 
economics is BS foisted upon the American public, ironically, by liberals. 
They don't want to give dead white guys the credit they deserve.

Its amazing to me how many people buy this line about the Civil War not 
being about slavery.  Where's the financial benefit to the north to free 
slaves? That part of the chain of logic is always missing from the argument. 
Note that there was no civil war over tarriffs. Yet, its easy enough to show 
how the North would benefit from high tarriffs and the South would suffer. 
At one point, Andrew Jackson sent troops into North Carolina to enforce the 
tarriffs but that is as far as it went. So why would a civil war break out 
over something so much less beneficial to the North unless they just 
believed in it upon principle. What actually happened was that the South 
assumed that Lincoln would start chipping away at slavery and they decided 
to beat him to the punch.

The fact is that while people were much more racist in the 19th century than 
we are today, at the very least, they knew it was wrong for one man to own 
another. Even Washington, Jefferson, and Madison knew that.  They just 
couldn't figure out what to do about it.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>; "NFB Talk Mailing List" 
<nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


>A historical note, the Civil War did not begin over slavery itself, but 
>rather because of a very complex set of economic forces of which the slaves 
>were only a part.  The North tried to claim the moral high ground on the 
>issue of slavery, but they were all too happy for the products produced by 
>slaves!  The fight to end slavery didn't really begin officially until the 
>Emancipation Proclamation.
>
> It's unclear to me from my own reading if this was something Lincoln just 
> decided to do on his own, or if he had a popular uprising that was calling 
> for it in the North prior to doing so.  All I know about it is that the 
> popular support existed after the Proclamation, and that Lincoln tells us 
> that he promised God he would end slavery.
>
> Those who seek to decry Lincoln on states' rights grounds (most of whom 
> are not secretly longing for the days of slavery, despite whatever the 
> political establishment tells you) do tend to falsely claim that Lincoln 
> never opposed slavery until he needed slaves to win the war.  This is 
> untrue, Lincoln's own words from before the Civil War indicate both that 
> he had a healthy disdain for slavery, and that he felt the president of 
> the United States did not have the power to abolish it.  The states' 
> rights crowd cite the latter where he said he had neither the ability nor 
> the desire to do it.
>
> This is why history is important, and why original sources are even more 
> so.  You shouldn't take my word for any of this, you should look it up for 
> yourselves and know what happened.  Yes, especially people here on this 
> list, the Federationists.
>
> Why?  Because there's a very important lesson to be learned from the Civil 
> War.  After the war ended, some former slaves moved on to other things in 
> other places.  A few bought some of the plantation owners' land in 
> exchange for a portion of the proceeds.  Many former slaves ... well, they 
> stayed on the plantations and continued to work essentially for room, 
> board, and food.  Essentially, they remained slaves, only their masters no 
> longer had to chain them up to make sure they didn't run away.  All Master 
> had to do was remind them that he could send them packing.
>
> I see this as an important lesson for the blind, because we have been 
> fighting for our freedom for so long.  And yet, how many now shackle 
> themselves to the government?  Stay out of trouble, and out of the way of 
> productive society, or we'll take away your Social Security, subsidized 
> housing, and food stamps.
>
> That similarity should make a person's blood run cold.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:55:59PM -0500, qubit wrote:
>>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
>
> 





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list