[nfb-talk] Climate

Steve Jacobson steve.jacobson at visi.com
Mon Jun 22 19:34:11 UTC 2015


John,

First, I think we have to realize that the climate has not been all that good for most changes we have asked for 
over time.  The climate may affect how we go about something and might even affect the priority, but the climate is 
rarely going to be right for something we request.  We really need to define the issue and figure out how to 
approach it.  For example, do we know to what degree existing law might be leveraged to bring about change?  So 
much of the cost of medical devices is covered by federal dollars that one would think there might be something 
that could be done with existing law, but I am no legal expert.  

Personally, I think that your admonishment to not be driven by climate is a good one.  I, too, was pleasantly 
surprised by the turnaround that seems to have taken place regarding gay marriage.  Some of whether an issue 
succeeds depends upon how it is presented, but that includes considering whether legislation is the best way to go.  

Without more context, I can't comment on what you say Marc Maurer said.  However, I can tell you that I have been 
aware of cases where families tried to gain control of the finances of a blind person solely due to blindness.  
Therefore, some of the testimony that the ACB generated to support accessible currency had quite an emotional 
impact on me.  While I am not accusing them of engaging in a publicity stunt, it felt that way to me emotionally, 
and I don't think I was alone.  Still, I accept that they felt that all stops needed to be pulled out to succeed 
even if I didn't like the approach.  Politics is that way, but I certainly am not going to expect that they 
apoligize based upon my perspective any more than I think we owe them an apology.  Further, working through some of 
this isn't going to help us that much in moving ahead.  I think we do need to resist the temptation to oppose 
anything the ACB supports, and the same is true in reverse.  Frankly, I think that is less likely to happen now 
than it may once have been the case, but I also think it is incorrect to disregard opposition to a position they 
take as not having any basis.  To take the medical device issue, define legislation as the only way forward, define 
any position against that as wrong, set the stage up such that if the ACB thinks legislation is called for that 
disagreeing with that is just petty politics is somewhat manipulative.  We need to give all this some thought 
without being drawn into angry responses.  We are simply never going to all see issues similarly, but we have to do 
the best we can to move forward even with that.  As more of us get older, more of us are going to need medical 
devices, so let's try to avoid getting into angry exchanges on this.  I tend to agree with Dave that you tend to 
define "right" as your opinion.  I tend to feel that we take positions based upon the information we have at the 
time, and that we trie to take the best position possible.  However, I also feel that to know whether a position is 
the truly correct one won't be known for a long time, and it may never be truly obvious.  It is very important to 
me to try to think through any position I take and to not simply adopt a position as a matter of Dogma.  You tend 
to see our positions at times as being dogmatic without recognizing that some of your positions also are being 
taken on a sort of dogma.  If we are going to move ahead, we have to be able to think issues through carefully.  

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson




On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:19:17 -0500, John Heim via nfb-talk wrote:

>I feel I should correct a mistake I made. I did say that it makes no 
>sense for Marc Maurer to go in front of Congress and testify against 
>tactile markings. However, all I was doing was to assume that members of 
>this list would remember the context of that event.

>For years, the NFB had been negotiating with the Bureau of Engraving to 
>get tactile markings on bills. Prior to the ACB lawsuit, There were at 
>least 2 NFB resolutions calling for tactile markings on bills. Prior to 
>the ACB lawsuit, the NFB successfully lobbied Congress to write a 
>resolution to urge the Bureau of Engraving to add tactile markings to 
>bills. Originally, the NFB's stance on the ACB lawsuit was that while we 
>were in favor of tactile markings, we felt the lawsuit was a "publicity 
>stunt" and that it was too risky. If it failed, the negotiations with 
>the Bureau of Engraving would be over. But that stance morphed to a 
>point where Marc Maurer sat before a congressional committee and said 
>asking for tactile markings on bills made blind people look "helpless".

>At the time, I was criticized for describing the NFB's position as being 
>against tactile markings.   If you read Marc Maurer's testimony before 
>Congress, I don't know how you can describe it as anything but being 
>against tactile markings. And I don't know how anyone can say that it 
>wasn't a complete reversal of the NFB's position on tactile markings 
>before the ACB lawsuit. If anyone can explain that, I'm listening.

>This is not just an example of the fact that no organization is perfect. 
>This is a systematic failure on the part of the NFB. We can go through 
>issue after issue and the same pattern emerges. And it's starting again. 
>If some group like the ACB started an initiative to require that all 
>medical devices talk, certain people on this list would declare the 
>initiative irresponsible and say that it was doomed to failure. And I 
>wouldn't be surprised if before we knew it, the NFB was taking an 
>official stance against it. If you think that's unrealistic, I give you 
>Marc Maurer's testimony before Congress on tactile markings on bills.

>PS: The normal pattern at this point would be for people to criticize me 
>for dredging up the past. I don['t want credit for being right. I just 
>want the NFB to stop taking the wrong and/or losing side of issue after 
>issue.  I am not claiming to be some kind of genius who is never wrong. 
>I am simply claiming to not be subject to this bizarre "NFB Climate" 
>disease.


>Daveid Andrews wrote:
>Part of the problem here is that you seem to feel that anyone who has a 
>position different from yours is just wrong!  You say so below, tactile 
>markings on bills is right and anything or anybody who thinks 
>differently is just wrong.
>>>
>>> There can be a variety of reasons for not putting tactile marks on 
>>> bills both practical and political.  There can also be different 
>>> identification methods.  But to you, because we didn't support your 
>>> position we are just wrong.
>>>
>>> No individual or organization is perfect.  There may well be times 
>>> when the NFB was wrong, and other times when the approach we promoted 
>>> didn't prevail, but that doesn't make us wrong.  And ... there are 
>>> topics upon which our position has or is eveolving.  But to you we 
>>> are wrong for anything different from what you think.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> At 07:43 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:
>>>> Lets call it like it is, Dave... The NFB has fought against things 
>>>> because the ACB was for them and the ACB has fought against things 
>>>> because the NFB was for them. If you tell me other groups like 
>>>> people in wheelchairs or ethnic minority groups do the same thing, 
>>>> well, first of all, I doubt it. But even if it's true, what 
>>>> difference does it make? The fact is that the rivalry between the 
>>>> NFB and ACB hurts our cause.
>>>>
>>>> Marc Maurer went in front of Congress and testified  against tactile 
>>>> markings on bills. Are you going to tell me that stance makes sense 
>>>> in any way, shape, or form?   What the heck sense can that possibly 
>>>> make?
>>>>
>>>> On 06/21/2015 06:47 PM, David Andrews via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>>> No, they are just being lazy.  On most topics there are difffering 
>>>>> views, and legislators need to hear all sides and make decisions.
>>>>> There is no reason we should all agree beforehand, it doesn't 
>>>>> happen anywhere else, outside of blindness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> At 05:03 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:
>>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think a major part of the problem getting lawmakers to give serious
>>>>>> consideration to issues for the blind is the differing opinions of 
>>>>>> the two
>>>>>> major blindness organizations.  If NFB and ACB would both be on 
>>>>>> the same
>>>>>> side of an issue it would present a united front which would 
>>>>>> result in a
>>>>>> larger impact.  Many years ago I was meeting with state 
>>>>>> lawmakers.  They
>>>>>> said it was very confusing because they received opposit opinions 
>>>>>> of how the
>>>>>> blind wanted them to vote on an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: John Heim via nfb-talk
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 5:18 PM
>>>>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> Cc: John Heim
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Climate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that's just Arkansas.  One of the reasons the NFB gave for siding
>>>>>> with movie producers in fighting  early FFC regulations on video
>>>>>> descriptions was that we'd rather have accessible emergency 
>>>>>> information.
>>>>>> Well, the logic aside, the truth is that we'd rather have both. But
>>>>>> people at the NFB disregarded that possibility. Then along comes the
>>>>>> Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessability Act 
>>>>>> and it's
>>>>>> a reality. The NFB approved a resolution calling the ACB lawsuit on
>>>>>> accessible money a "publicity stunt". The ACB won that lawsuit in 
>>>>>> spite
>>>>>> of the NFB doing everything they could do to stop it. Think of how 
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> easier these things would have been if the NFB had thrown it's 
>>>>>> weight in
>>>>>> on the winning side. And the NFB itself would be far better off. 
>>>>>> After
>>>>>> the ACB won it's suit, the NFB had to ask that it be allowed to be 
>>>>>> part
>>>>>> of the negotiations on how  money would be made accessible. I 
>>>>>> talked to
>>>>>> the President of the ACB via email and he was reluctant to let the 
>>>>>> NFB
>>>>>> be part of the negotiations not just because of the hard feelings but
>>>>>> also because of the possibility of the NFB being a negative 
>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>> the negotiations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This negative attitude is harmful. Just because you think you can do
>>>>>> something, that doesn't mean you can. But if you think you can't do
>>>>>> something, then you are almost certain to fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/19/2015 05:26 PM, Larry Wayland via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>>>> > John, I am not totally disagreeing with you on this. Yes we need 
>>>>>> to fight
>>>>>> > vigorously for accessibility rights in all reasonable areas, most
>>>>>> > especially
>>>>>> > in education and the work place.  Having said that, I am going 
>>>>>> to repeat
>>>>>> > that the political climate is not good at this time. Doesn't 
>>>>>> mean we don't
>>>>>> > need to fight as a matter of fact we need to fight harder. I 
>>>>>> have faced
>>>>>> > some of these bad climate legislators  across a table in our State
>>>>>> > Capital.
>>>>>> > One are two were friendly but most were not and some were 
>>>>>> bordering  on
>>>>>> > being hostel.  They were in the process of repealing the 
>>>>>> technology law I
>>>>>> > mentioned in a previous message. The speaker of the House told 
>>>>>> me that
>>>>>> > they
>>>>>> > needed to protect the people of the state from a Law Suit. I got 
>>>>>> the idea
>>>>>> > that he felt the blind people of the state did not really have 
>>>>>> any rights.
>>>>>> > While the law was in place for 13 years, it was affective in 
>>>>>> causing
>>>>>> > developers to set up regular meetings to discuss accessibility 
>>>>>> and things
>>>>>> > were looking better, not great, but better.  I don't want to go 
>>>>>> into all
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > story, its too long.  The law was successfully repealed and 
>>>>>> replaced withg
>>>>>> > one that matches 508.  That was two years ago and now there is 
>>>>>> no meetings
>>>>>> > no discussion and no accessibility development as far as I can 
>>>>>> tell.
>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> > From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>>>>>> John Heim
>>>>>> > via nfb-talk
>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:56 PM
>>>>>> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> > Cc: John Heim
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Climate
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Come on, Larry, do you really think I was saying you had to 
>>>>>> change the
>>>>>> > world
>>>>>> > all by yourself?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > When I wrote of your negative attitude, I was talking about your 
>>>>>> comment
>>>>>> > agreeing with Tom Freeman that the climate wasn't right for 
>>>>>> getting laws
>>>>>> > passed to get things fixed. First of all, that's not even true. 
>>>>>> The truth
>>>>>> > is
>>>>>> > that much of the progress that has been made has been in spite 
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> > NFB's
>>>>>> > efforts to derail it. I know that's hard to hear but it's true. 
>>>>>> I am not
>>>>>> > questioning the sincerity of those involved but the fact is that 
>>>>>> the NFB
>>>>>> > has
>>>>>> > been on the wrong, not to mention the losing side, of a lot of 
>>>>>> battles
>>>>>> > over
>>>>>> > the past few years. Secondly, if the climate has changed to be 
>>>>>> against us,
>>>>>> > lets change it back!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Look at what has happened with gay marriage over the past 2 or 3 
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> > The country did an almost complete about face on that issue over 
>>>>>> the past
>>>>>> > few years. Any day now, it is probably going to be the law of 
>>>>>> the land.
>>>>>> > Whatever you think of gay marriage, you have to admit that was in
>>>>>> > incredible
>>>>>> > turnaround.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > And we have one extraordinarily powerful weapon on our side -- 
>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>> > The truth has strength. It has power. With it, we can win.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [And no, I am not running for President of the NFB.]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On 06/17/2015 09:36 PM, Larry Wayland via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>>>> >> It was a state law passed in Arkansas.  You are right, you 
>>>>>> don't know
>>>>>> >> me and it sure looked as though you were attacking me directly.  I
>>>>>> >> don't know what you see im my message that looks like a defeatist
>>>>>> >> attitude. I just said the laws are in place and they are not 
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> >> doing any good.  It looks as though the companies are just 
>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>> >> them. I agree with you about being knocked down a thousand  
>>>>>> times. It
>>>>>> >> sure seems that way sometimes, and you are right we should not 
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> >> accept
>>>>>> > defeat.
>>>>>> >> Larry
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf 
>>>>>> Of John
>>>>>> >> Heim via nfb-talk
>>>>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:10 PM
>>>>>> >> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> >> Cc: John Heim
>>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Climate
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> First of all, your message is too vague for me to respond to in 
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> >> meaningful way. What law are you talking about?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Secondly, when I said "you", I didn't mean you personally. I meant
>>>>>> >> everyone in the NFB. That should have been obvious. For all I know
>>>>>> >> you personally arere on 18 boards of directors and are the 
>>>>>> president of
>>>>>> >> 23
>>>>>> > non-profits.
>>>>>> >> That's not the point.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On the other hand, you personally are responsible for helping to
>>>>>> >> prepetuate this defeatist attitude.  We can't win if we tell 
>>>>>> ourselves
>>>>>> >> we are beaten before we even start. I personally will never 
>>>>>> accept that.
>>>>>> >> I don't care if I get knocked down a thousand times, I intend 
>>>>>> to keep
>>>>>> >> fighting. And I'll tell you, with iavit.org, sometimes I feel like
>>>>>> >> it's at least a thousand times already.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On 06/17/2015 08:52 PM, Larry Wayland via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>>>> >>> I did, we worked hard and got a law passed and it worked great 
>>>>>> for 15
>>>>>> >> years.
>>>>>> >>> Then a new administration came along and repealed the law. The 
>>>>>> law
>>>>>> >>> was used to successfully sue the state. If we could have 
>>>>>> gotten other
>>>>>> >>> states to pass a similar law it would have worked great, but 
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> >>> states were not able to pass a similar law so companies just 
>>>>>> refused
>>>>>> >>> to update the software we sued over so the reps thought they 
>>>>>> had to
>>>>>> >>> repeal the law to protect the state from other law suits. If 
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> >>> states had passed similar laws they would have been forced to 
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> >>> their software accessible and we would not be in this 
>>>>>> situation. So
>>>>>> >>> maybe you need to get off your butt! and get some laws passed 
>>>>>> your self!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >>> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf 
>>>>>> Of John
>>>>>> >>> Heim via nfb-talk
>>>>>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:18 PM
>>>>>> >>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> >>> Cc: John Heim
>>>>>> >>> Subject: [nfb-talk] Climate (was: Medical feeding tube not 
>>>>>> accessible
>>>>>> >>> to a
>>>>>> >>> member)
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> So what are you going to do about it? The problem I have with 
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> >>> attitude is that it is so often used as an excuse to not try. 
>>>>>> Just
>>>>>> >>> stop it! Stop! Get off your butts and get to work. Pass a 
>>>>>> resolution
>>>>>> >>> demanding accessible medical devices and then move heaven and 
>>>>>> earth
>>>>>> >>> to get the law passed.  And if you fail, try again only try 
>>>>>> harder.
>>>>>> >>> And if you fail again, try harder still!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> This is how the world is changed. It's not changed by sitting 
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> >>> and talking about how hard it is to change the world.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On 06/17/2015 07:34 PM, Larry Wayland via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> Yes we have those laws,  and yet almost all TV systems are 
>>>>>> still not
>>>>>> >>>> accessible. Blind people are still having trouble with 
>>>>>> accessibility
>>>>>> >>>> in schools and with their jobs. I agree that the political 
>>>>>> climate
>>>>>> >>>> is not good for passing good solid laws at this time and I 
>>>>>> think it
>>>>>> >>>> will be a while before we see any serious improvement.
>>>>>> >>>> Larry
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >>>> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> >>>> John Heim via nfb-talk
>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:39 PM
>>>>>> >>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> >>>> Cc: John Heim
>>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Medical feeding tube not accessible to a
>>>>>> >>>> member
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> In recent years, Congress has given us an improved ADA and the
>>>>>> >>>> Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 
>>>>>> Act. The
>>>>>> >>>> Supreme Court signed off on accessible currency. I don't 
>>>>>> think the
>>>>>> >>>> political climate is anywhere near the impediment to progress 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> >>>> you
>>>>>> >>> make it out to be.
>>>>>> >>>> On 06/17/2015 03:41 PM, Mike Freeman via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> IMO it will require Congressional action to mandate 
>>>>>> accessibility
>>>>>> >>>>> -- something I deem highly unlikely in the current political 
>>>>>> climate.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Mike
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >>>>> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On 
>>>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>>> >>>>> Ken Chrane via nfb-talk
>>>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:29 PM
>>>>>> >>>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> >>>>> Cc: Ken Chrane
>>>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Medical feeding tube not accessible 
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> >>>>> member
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Greetings Fellow Federationists:
>>>>>> >>>>> An issue of this kind may be brought up at our upcoming NFB
>>>>>> >>>>> Convention in Orlando, Florida.
>>>>>> >>>>> Please pass the word around.
>>>>>> >>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Ken Chrane
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >>>>> From: Ken Chrane via nfb-talk
>>>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:23 PM
>>>>>> >>>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> >>>>> Cc: Ken Chrane
>>>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Medical feeding tube not accessible 
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> >>>>> member
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >>>>> From: Roanna Bacchus via nfb-talk
>>>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:07 PM
>>>>>> >>>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>>> >>>>> Cc: Roanna Bacchus
>>>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Medical feeding tube not accessible 
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> >>>>> member
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Hi Jason thanks for your message.  I do not know if there is a
>>>>>> >>>>> machine for feeding that is accessible to the blind.  I've 
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> >>>>> heard of medical tubes being accessible to the blind.  This 
>>>>>> is an
>>>>>> >>>>> interesting issue for your member.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
>>>>>> info
>>>>>> >>>>> for
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/kenneth.chran
>>>>>> >>>>> e
>>>>>> >>>>> %
>>>>>> >>>>> 4
>>>>>> >>>>> 0veriz
>>>>>> >>>>> on.net
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
>>>>>> info
>>>>>> >>>>> for
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/kenneth.chran
>>>>>> >>>>> e
>>>>>> >>>>> %
>>>>>> >>>>> 4
>>>>>> >>>>> 0veriz
>>>>>> >>>>> on.net
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
>>>>>> info
>>>>>> >>>>> for
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.
>>>>>> >>>>> c
>>>>>> >>>>> o
>>>>>> >>>>> m
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
>>>>>> info
>>>>>> >>>>> for
>>>>>> >>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> net
>>>>>> >>>> --
>>>>>> >>>> John Heim
>>>>>> >>>> john at johnheim.com
>>>
>>>         David Andrews and long white cane Harry.
>>> E-Mail:  dandrews at visi.com or david.andrews at nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>> nfb-talk:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net 
>>>
>>


>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com








More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list