[nfb-talk] Please stop this thread RE:Explanation of traffic lightsand pedestrian signals

[T. Joseph Carter]

Nope, Dave got sucked in too, trying to convince John that his 
position doesn't make sense.

Clue for those who don't understand trolling: Of course it doesn't 
make sense.  Nobody would argue with him if he was making sense, even 
if they disagreed with him.  They'd just say that his conclusion was 
a valid one, even if they disagree with it.

By taking a position you KNOW will get maximum negative response, and 
then antagonizing those who do respond with lots of loaded language, 
you get all of the fun of being the center of attention, and can go 
cry to Dave if someone says something mean to you.

Meanwhile we have recently had Federation leaders call people whose 
politics they don't like "nazi" (Mike Godwin's law, anyone?) and yet 
those involved have managed to resolve things with civility remaining 
mostly intact, more or less.

Kinda puts this in perspective, doesn't it?

Joseph


On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 08:58:19AM -0500, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>I think that David is on it. he is the moderator, are you one of them?
>If so then I'm sorry
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Marsha Drenth" 
><marsha.drenth at gmail.com>
>To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 10:40 PM
>Subject: [nfb-talk] Please stop this thread RE:Explanation of traffic 
>lightsand pedestrian signals
>
>
>>
>>I would like to ask very nicely that this thread be stopped. It is filling
>>my inbox unnecessarily, and I am tired of deleting messages. Please stop!
>>
>>Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>Behalf Of David Andrews
>>Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 10:39 PM
>>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and 
>>pedestrian signals
>>
>> John:
>>
>>I read the link you gave below.  The majority of the piece is taken
>>up with research and descriptions of what an APS should sound like to
>>be audible to the most people.  There are a couple sentences, at the
>>end, which I will paste in that say that APS's improve the attention
>>to walk signals  for everybody, and the last sentence says that they
>>help blind people know exactly when the signal changes.  That is it.
>>
>>This is obviously an important issue to you -- it comes up again and
>>again and again.  The NFB position has shifted some over time, but at
>>this point we are not going out and fight for APS's at all
>>intersections.  It just isn't going to happen.  In the greater scheme
>>of things we think there are more critical issues.  I would guess you
>>don't agree.  That doesn't make us or you right or wrong,  it just is.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Effect of Speech Messages on all pedestrians
>>
>>Van Houten, Malenfant, Van Houten and Retting (1997) found that
>>redundant information conveyed by audible pedestrian signals
>>increases the attention of all pedestrians to turning traffic and may
>>contribute to a reduction in pedestrian-vehicular conflicts and
>>crashes at signalized intersections. Their research in Clearwater,
>>Florida used prototype speech message technology in which speech
>>messages were broadcast from the pedestrian signal head. When the
>>pedestrian push button was pressed, the message was "Please wait for
>>WALK signal." The message "Look for turning vehicles while crossing
>>[street name]" began 200 msec before WALK signals were illuminated.
>>
>>The signal also gave participants who were blind precise information
>>about the onset of the WALK interval and which street had the WALK 
>>interval.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 08:33 AM 5/26/2010, you wrote:
>>>All you need to do is google "research audible walk signal".  There
>>>is plenty of information out that that will help you decide for
>>>yourself about audible walk signals. I'm confident that anyone
>>>reasonably informed on this subject will agree with me.
>>>
>>>Here's a really good place to start:
>>>http://www.apsguide.org/appendix_c_signal.cfm
>>>
>>>Have you noticed that my posts are chuck full of links to
>>>documentation for the things I say whereas those of the people who
>>>disagree with me have none? This is always the case on this list in
>>>every single debate we've ever had. None of these debates are ever a
>>>case of dueling facts. In each ccase, I have all the facts and my
>>>opponents have nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and insults.
>>
>>                        David Andrews:  dandrews at visi.com
>>Follow me on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/dandrews920
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
>>signature
>>database 5155 (20100530) __________
>>
>>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>>http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
>>signature
>>database 5155 (20100530) __________
>>
>>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>>http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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