[nfb-talk] [NFB-talk] Here We Go Again: Home Makeover-blindcouple in OH

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Sun Dec 12 05:27:05 UTC 2010


As I recall -- and I could be wrong, our most recent resolution said 
that they would be appropriate in some situations.

Our official positions are those determined by resolutions at 
convention, not what somebody says here, or even what is in the Monitor.

Dave


At 01:04 PM 12/11/2010, you wrote:
>David, I'm not "baiting" you with anything. I'm stating cold, hard
>facts. I would be only too happy if the NFB had changed its position
>on accessible signals. Has it? If you have information in that regard,
>I'd be only too happy to hear it.
>
>
>
>On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:11 PM, David Andrews wrote:
>
>>John:
>>
>>It seems to me that you sometimes take what individuals say and act
>>like this is official NFB policy.  Just because somebody says it
>>here -- it doesn't necessarily mean that this our official policy.
>>I agree that some people may not realize or understand that our
>>position has shifted, and is more nuanced than anyone is admitting.
>>
>>You keep beating us with a nine year old protest -- give it up.
>>
>>David Andrews
>>
>>At 08:53 AM 12/10/2010, you wrote:
>>>I am pretty sure that I never said the NFB was against accessible
>>>pedestrian signals in all circumstances.  In fact, I think this
>>>only proves my point. When I tell you that the NFB organized
>>>protests against the Access Board recommendations on accessible
>>>signals and the they said they make blind pedestrians less safe,
>>>you heard "against them". But that's not what I said.
>>>
>>>I've been trying to make a point about the NFB's position on
>>>accessible signals for a couple of years now and I really don't
>>>think that its not getting through because of the way I'm putting
>>>it. I have 2 very specific complaints with the NFB's position on
>>>accessible signals. first is that They organized protests against
>>>the Access Board recommendations in 2001. Secondly, they have been
>>>saying that accessible signals make blind pedestrians less safe.
>>>I've provided links to Braille Monitor articles supporting thos
>>>claims.
>>>
>>>You can see the effect of these actions as well as I can. There are
>>>a lot of myths about audible signals and almost universal
>>>opposition to them on this list. If the NFB's position is that it
>>>favors accessible signals under certain circumstances, its lost on
>>>many of the members of this list.






More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list