X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  Bill McGarry <wtm@SHELDEV.SHEL.ISC-BR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.l-hcap
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:14:39 EDT
Reply-To:     Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
From:         Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
Subject:      Handicap Digest # 2802
X-To:         LHCAP <l-hcap@VM1.NODAK.EDU>

                             THE HANDICAP DIGEST

                                 Issue # 2802

                            Friday, July 17, 1992

Today's Topics:


                                ******

                           Blink Talk Digest # 650

                              Braille 'N Speak
                                Modern canes
                            Re: vendor favoritism
                                Amiga Vs Ibm
                          Nfb Bbs Censorship?? You
                               Nls And Choice
                                Acb/nfb Feud
                            Re: Vendor Favoritism
                          nfb bbs censorship?? You
                          Re: nfb bbs censorship??


                                ******


To subscribe to the Handicap Digest mailing list or have your
thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to
Bill McGarry at any of the following addresses:


UUCP:       uunet!bunker!wtm
INTERNET:   wtm@bunker.shel.isc-br.com
BITNET:     l-hcap@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Fidonet:    The Handicap News BBS (141/420)   1-203-337-1607
	    (300/1200/2400 baud, 24 hours)
Compuserve: 73170,1064

                              Bill McGarry (Moderator)
                              (203) 337-1518



------



Subject: Braille 'N Speak
From: Nancy.Feldman@f605.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Nancy Feldman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/605 - Purgatory BBS, Salem OR


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Does anyone have suggestions for a new Braille 'n Speak user (me!!!!!)
who wants to write files on the Braille 'n Speak in Grade 2 braille for
later conversion into print?  I have the disk drive and all, and am just
looking for formatting tips, characters the machine may not
backtranslate well, etc.

Thanks.

 * SLMR 2.1a *         Counselor Troi does it with feeling.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!605!Nancy.Feldman
Internet: Nancy.Feldman@f605.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Modern canes
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to All <02 Jul 92 11:10> Lee Mounger wrote:

 LM> After years, I am in the market for a
 LM> portable cane.  The antiquated
 LM> beast from 1969 has bitten the dust.
 LM> I would appreciate suggestions from
 LM> anyone on the best portable canes made
 LM> nowadays and where to order them.
 LM> Thanks in advance.  Later.

Hi, Lee.

I assume by "portable cane" you mean a collapsible cane of some sort,
either telescopic or folding.  If this is the case, I would recommend
the carbon-fiber telescopic canes from the National Federation of the
Blind.  They are strong, extremely light in weight and hold up under
considerably more abuse than did the fiberglass predecessors.  You can
still smash a section in a car door but it takes considerably more force
to do so.

I use such a cane occasionally and it's the only collapsible cane I
would trust to be used out-of-doors.

You may obtain these canes (which, I believe, cost $35.00) from the the
Aids and Appliances Center, National Federation of the Blind, 1800
Johnson Street, Baltimore MD 21230 (telephone (410)659-9314).  Get an
Aids and Appliances order form.  It'll have the part numbers.

Good luck!

Mike Freeman

P.S.  If you don't trust carbon-fiber and you don't mind weight, I still
recommend the canes from Hycor which are metal and use aircraft cable to
hold the sections together.  I've misplaced mine, alas, though mostly
use the carbon-fiber now. -MF-
... ** Sevareids law:  The cause of problems is solutions. **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: vendor favoritism
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Keith Bucher <02 Jul 92 10:07> Tandy Way wrote:

 TW> here is another one for you blazie has
 TW> joined t.s.i. in selling to the
 TW> federal government. he seems to take lessons from jim bliss
 TW> and his crowd which is tell the federal government
 TW> purchasers anything they want to hear and promise their
 TW> equipment will do what sighted folks think it should do but
 TW> sell the product. the social security administration just
 TW> bought a bunch of braille and speaks and the blazie braille
 TW> printer with the misstaken notion that the people in the
 TW> field could take any ascii file and bingo convert it to
 TW> grade 2 braille output on the printer. this all without the
 TW> use of a pc or braille translation software. as several
 TW> have said here b n s is a back translator so it will
 TW> convert grade 2 in to ascii and output it to the printer as
 TW> grade 1 braille.  I am supposed to be the receipient of one

Hello, Tandy.

How do you know that the situation should be blamed on Blazie
Engineering?  After all, it was SSA that bought the Braille 'N Speaks.
Do you know for fact that SSA in fact asked Blazie Engineering if this
combination would do what they wanted?  Or did SSA assume, as I suspect,
from a cursory reading of the promotional literature, that the
combination of Braille 'N Speak and Braille Blazer printer would do the
trick without asking Blazie Engineering if this would, indeed, be the
case?

I submit that the real problem here is not with Blazie Engineering but
rather with SSA which failed to ask its blind employees which equipment
would benefit them.  I work for the Bonneville Power Administration, an
agency under the Department of Energy.  They only buy adaptive gear for
me on my say-so and they buy what I recommend.  When I was hired, my
boss told me that they did not know a tinker's damn about adaptive
equipment; it was my job to tell them what I needed.  This was (and is)
as it should be.  Would that all Federal bureaucrats were that smart.
Would also that blind employees and prospective employees would insist
upon the right to determine what equipment would serve their purposes
and upon the right to obtain that equipment.

73's!

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... ** "A cynic is right nine times out of ten." -- H. L. Mencken **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Amiga Vs Ibm
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hello, Chris!

In a message to Mike Freeman <30 Jun 92 22:39> Chris Bazzie wrote:

 CB> I own an Amiga, and out of curiosity I
 CB> have closed my eyes (I am
 CB> sighted) and had the built in voice
 CB> synth speak a text file.  It was a
 CB> completely failed experiment.  I
 CB> suppose, that if I listened very very
 CB> closely and with all of my
 CB> concnetration, that I *may* be able to
 CB> understand it at a decent rate-
 CB> although I seriously doubt it.  It would
 CB> seem to me that a much more natural
 CB> voice, with better punctuation
 CB> responses would be alot better.
 CB> Sorry if I didn't quite catch the
 CB> thread of your conversation, but I
 CB> thought I might add my two cents.

No problems; glad to have your thoughts.  I have never seen nor heard an
Amega so was speaking purely from hearsay (a guy on GEnie whom I
occasionally run into has an Amega with an IBM PC emulator board).
Hence, I've never heard its voice.  I've heard some who say it's great;
others didn't like it.  That isn't the real problem, however.

In the course of computer use, users (both blind and sighted) must
review material on the screen.  In the case of the blind user, this
means that he/she must be able to go back and review material that has
already been spoken.  This necessitates some sort of software and/or
hardware to capture material going to the screen and retain it in memory
somewhare and give the user access to it so that it can be spoken
character-by-character, word-by-word, line-by-line, etc. etc. etc. at
the user's whim.  Here is where computers with synthesizers built into
them for speaking in games etc. fall down; they generally allow files to
be spoken but, once spoken, there is no way to review them short of
retyping them to the synthesizer.  The program of which I wrote allows
the Amega to have this screen-review capability.

As to listening to a synthesizer -- any synthesizer -- it takes some
getting used to so I am not surprised that you found it somewhat
baffling.  My wife still cannot understand my synthesizer (admittedly a
low-end, old-fashioned primitive one) after four years of listening.
But then she doesn't depend upon it to deal with the screen (she's
sighted).

Again, thanks for writing.  Oh yes, the guy to whom I wrote is on the
Internet.

Cheers!

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J > (my ham call)
... ** If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy folks? **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Nfb Bbs Censorship?? You
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Tim Cumings <04 Jul 92 10:59> Bill Koppelmann wrote:

 BK> Hi tim,
 BK> Thanks so much for letting us see this
 BK> revealing side of nfb dogmatic
 BK> policy. I'm sorry to say that I'm not
 BK> surprised, but I'm not.

Hi, Bill.

It would appear that we're getting only one side of the story here.  In
addition to being put up on NFB NET, LOYALTY.TXT has been put up several
other places, including, of course BlinkLink.  To what end?  Was Mr.
Cummings asking N.F.B. members about the veracity of the charges
contained in the article?  If this was the case, why put it up several
other places besides on NFBNET?  This would lead me to believe that Mr.
Cummings had another purpose in mind, namely, to stir up controversy
and, as you say elsewhere, bash the N.F.B.  I am not saying that he has
no right to do so; I am merely pointing out that his protests of NFBNET
censorship come off somewhat disingenuous in light of his subsequent
actions.  If NFBNET *had* allowed the article out for public comment,
would Mr. Cummings have not put the article up elsewhere?  I think not.

Now consider the tone of the article.  There were a lot of "It is
believed that ..." and "It is said that ..." statements in the article.
No sources were cited for each specific allegation against the N.F.B.
This is surely shabby journalsim and the NFB membership (including
myself) wouldn't tolerate spending its money to publicize such drivel.

Let me be perfectly clear:  no one objects if serious questions about
NFB policies or philosophy are raised on NFBNET.  No one would object if
someone asked in a spirit of objective inquiry why a certain policy
existed.  They'd probably get fifteen replies from those who were on the
spot when the policy(ies) in question was(were) debated.  I do think,
however, that people would object (and some have) if people were to get
on NFBNET and ask questions that, by their very nature, were biased in a
certain direction or, if you will, were loaded.  Those who oppose the
NFB very often pose questions in just such a manner; they are of the
"When do you beat your wife" variety or, often, they are of the "Prove
that thus-and-so isn't so" variety -- an ilk of question that, by it's
nature, cannot be answered for one can only prove it "by construction",
as it were, and those asking for the proof can always maintain that all
the evidence is not in.

An example of this last sort of question is:  "Prove to me that Dr.
Jernigan is not a dictator!"  No matter how many instances we of the NFB
might give to show that Dr. Jernigan must follow the dictates of NFB
policies made at convention (as must the rest of us), there will be
those who say "yes but ...".  Under the circumstances, one is tempted to
wonder why bother to answer such arguments.  However, in the interest of
keeping things somewhat honest around here, some of us occasionally try.

Had the article Mr. Cummings scanned been of a higher journalistic
caliber and had the charges it contained not been disproved long ago,
NFBNET would have considered putting it up.  This was not the case so
the article was not set out for public comment.

Consider this:  in addition to its purpose of promoting discussion of
concrete issues of NFB philosophy, NFBNET is avowedly a BBS designed to
provide a convenient source of NFB literature and to propagandize, if
you will, NFB.  There's nothing wrong with this.  Yes, NFBNET has many
useful files of all varities for blind persons and those interested in
blindness.  But NFBNET doesn't carry the Braille Forum because it is
under no obligation to carry another organization's house organ.  In the
same way, the Microtalk BBS is not obligated to carry TinyTAlk demos or
Vocal-eyes demos etc.  Why help a competitor to sell his product?

All this asside, has anyone ever noticed that no one ever sees articles
or messages on here blasting ACB or spreading scherulous falsehoods
about, say, Durward McDaniel or Oral Miller?  It's worth pondering.

Mike < K 7 U I J >
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be
 blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Nls And Choice
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Keith Bucher <03 Jul 92 09:34> Bill Koppelmann wrote:

 >isn't it funny?  The NFB,
 BK> are silent on this one.  In fact, they never
 >>seem to have anything bad to say about Cylke.

What?  Has saying something rasty about Mr. Cylcke now become sort of
a lytmus test of one's ability to represent the blind?  That's a new
one.

The reason NFB remained silent is that no one brought the subject up.
I've been at every convention from 1983 on and I have heard plenty of
complaints but that one's a new one on me.  I'm not saying that
criticisms of magazine selection don't have merit; I merely note that
such criticisms were never brought up during the question-and-answer
periods following Mr. Cylcke's presentations nor, to my knowledge, was
he asked about the subject in his discussion with individuals during his
convention attendance (though I cannot vouch for this as I always did
something else during those times, figuring that he was already being
mobbed by those wondering just when the Combination Machine *really* was
gonna come out!).  I've gotten my licks in speaking to him personally in
the banquet lines and at other times, though.  I just can't seem to
convince him to can *all* romances <grin>.

If you guys are dissatisfied, mount a campaign; call up the 800 number
and bitch.  That is, in part, what it's for.  And if you're an NFB or
ACB member, ask him about it at the next convention.  Better yet, write
to him; written missives always get attention.

Cheers!

Mike
... ** "Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end." -- Stravinsky
 **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Acb/nfb Feud
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Dan Kysor <03 Jul 92 09:44> Bill Koppelmann wrote:

 > BK>> If you are wishing an example, I'd
 > BK>> say nac is a good one.  Do you
 > BK>> think the nfb is on the mark about
 > BK>> this, and if it is, what do you
 > BK>> think of acb's stand on the subject?
 >>
 >>      again bill, in our
 >>       daily lives, does nac effect our
 >> unemployment situation?
 >> does nac effect anything except a jones on the part of some
 >> dogmatic sheep!!

 BK> hMMM, SEVERAL YEARS AGO i WOULD HAVE
 BK> SAID YES, AND i STILL MIGHT AS MY
 BK> CONCERNS ARE THAT IF AN ORGANIZATION
 BK> ACCEPTS nac ACCREDITATION,
 BK> PERHAPS THEY ALSO HAVE CRAPPY IDEAS
 BK> ABOUT HOW THE BLIND SHOULD BE
 BK> SERVED AS WELL.  i CAN ASSURE YOU THAT
 BK> i'M MIGHTY GLAD THAT hADLEY IS
 BK> NO LONGER NAC ACCREDITED.  hOWEVER,
 BK> THAT MAY WELL BE A GOOD EXAMPLE IN
 BK> YOUR FAVOR, IT'S HARD TO SAY.  iN
 BK> OTHER WORDS, i'M JUST NOT REALLY
 BK> SURE ABOUT THIS ONE.

I'd say that for little Jeniffer Driggers, NAC-accreditation made quite
a bit of difference.  Jennifer Driggers was a multi-handicapped girl who
was, I believe, nine years old and who attended the Florida State School
for the Deaf and Blind for a while in 1987, I believe.  It may well be
that her placement was incorrect but this is no excuse for what happened
to her.  She was subject to nearly continuous abuse from fellow students
without serious intervention on the part of staff and, in the end, was
killed via scalding in a shower which was not being supervised at the
time by staff (Jennifer was retarded and required supervision).

The damnable thing about this is that even after the story hit the
papers, NAC did nothing!  If it be objected, as some did, that NAC
merely concerned itself with the academic portion of FSDB, that doesn't
wash!  Those kids were resident on the campus (but not in school) some
sixteen hours of the day and the residential environment had/has a
direct bearing upon their ability to learn.  I also would argue
 that NAC should have inspected FSDB closely enough to foresee that
incidents such as Ms. Driggers' death were possible.

Again, NAC did nothing when a NAC-accredited school, the Alabama School
for the Deaf and Blind, was subject to an investigation which revealed
fraud and malfeisance on the part of management.  If NAC did nothing,
why bother to seek its approval?

NAC accredits sheltered workshops which pay less-than-minimum wages to
some of their blind workers.  If it be objected that the work is done on
a piecerate basis and that the blind workers aren't as productive as the
sighted, I say nonsense!  Very often, the tests to measure productivity
are rigged so as to down-grade the apparent productiveness of the blind
workers.  In addition, often sighted workers are paid minimum wage at
least, regardless of their productivity.  If society doesn't tolerate
slave-labor for the sighted, it should not do so for the blind.  IMHO
NAC, as an official body charged with stamping a "seal of approval" on
institutions it accredits, should not accredit sheltered shops that pay
less-than-minimum wages to *any* blind (or sighted) workers.
Mininum-wage laws should apply to the blind as well as the sighted.

 > BK>> While I'm at it, I might as well
 > BK>> get myself in deeper.  Jernigan is
 > BK>> reported to have said that acbers
 > BK>> are losers.  Obviously, you don't
 > BK>> think so.  If not, why not.
 >>
 >>because of the fact that we are all
 >loosers as blind people as long
 >>as we fight amoungst ourselves and we
 >really need to get together.

I thoroughly agree.  It is rather difficult to do so, however, when,
everytime you turn around, someone in the other organization is going
out of his/her way to criticize your every move.  In this case, it seems
as though top officialdom in the ACB cannot let an issue of the Braille
Forum go by without carping at the NFB for something-or-other.  If you
were to read the MOnitor often, I think you'd find that there is very
little mention of the ACB.  In fact, Paul Edwards, who is, I believe,
the First VP of the ACB, attended a substantial part of our convention
this year.  At the open meeting of the Board of Directors of the NFB,
Dr. Jernigan recognized him and welcomed him to the convention.  Dr.
Jernigan further stated that if ACB would, in effect, tone down the
rhetoric, that NFB was willing to work with them.  Given such luminaries
as Durward K. McDaniel and Oral Miller, I find it questionable whether
ACB can see its way to do so.  ACB seems continually to be re-living the
events of the past (in particular, the days of the Civil War with NFB)
while we of the NFB have moved on to bigger and better things.

Yes, I agree that it would be of immense help if we could work together.
In addition to the ill-will that is often apparent in ACB toward NFB, I
discern another obstacle to working together.  It has to do with the
underlying philosophy of the two organizations.  Consider, for example,
the relationship between the NNACP on the one hand and Booker T.
Washington and his Tuskeegee Institute on the other hand.  Mr. Dubois of
the NAACP and Mr. Washington hated each other; Mr. Dubois saw Mr.
Washington as an "uncle tom," sucking up to the establishment (whose
moguls invariably praised Mr. Washington for being a "good Negro")
while, in fact, doing very little to further the quest of the Negro for
first-class citizenship and an equal opportunity to participate in
society.  Mr. Washington, on the other hand, saw himself as getting jobs
-- any jobs -- for blacks and saw Mr. Dubois as a radical and as
demanding what was not possible to obtain.  Substitute the NFB for the
NAACP and Booker T. Washington's Tuskeegee Institute for the ACB and you
have what I would maintain was a near-exact parallel.  ACB tends to
trust agencies for the blind and tends to trust that, by being pleasant
and assuming that all would be well, that things will improve.  We of
the NFB, on the other hand, tend to distrust agencies and feel that, in
order to obtain first-class status in society, the blind must militantly
stand up for their rights and demand that they be honored.  This does
not mean that we do not prefer quiet negotiations to demonstrations.
Quite the contrary.  But, on the other hand, we are not afraid to speak
vociferously when we believe that the situation calls for it in order to
obtain equal participation in society and to be treated as first-class
citizens and human beings.  The ACB, on the other hand, tends to be
satisfied with incremental change.

These are all large generalizations but they have enough truth to give
some indication as to why the organizations have not, in fact, gotten
together.  That, plus the tendency of ACB leaders to carp at we NFBers
all the time, holds us back.

Incidentally, I am not sure that Dr. Jernigan said that ACBers were
loosers.  There is an NFB song (not written by the leadership,
incidentally) called "Where have all the Loosers Gone".  One of its
verses says "Gone to the Council every one."  Bear in mind, though, that
the song is over twenty years old.  Must we continually be dredging up
stuff that's twenty years old?  We of the NFB are prepared to let
bygones be bygones; we would hope that ACB is also willing to do so.
The one person whom I can think of who said that the caliber of ACB
members was less than that of NFBers was Gertrude van Tassel Ward, a
deaf blind person from Pennsylvania who has passed on.

 >>i work with the blind and the
 >legislature and all i know is is that
 >>both organizations agree on a whole lot
 >of issues.  its too bad
 >>that some dogmatic leaders have the time
 >to  make comments like the
 >>one you quoted.  remember, an

I agree.  NFB personnel may have made such comments twenty years ago; it
is in the Forum now that one sees organizational politics run rampant.

INcidentally, when Dr. Jernigan offered the olive-branch to Mr. Edwards
at the Board of Directors meeting, the only mutterings of dissent I
heard (and they were not very loud) were from rank-and-file
Federationists, not the leadership.  So much for the dictatorship of the
leadership -- a charge, incidentally, that dates back to Dr. tenBroek's
time.

 >organization that demands first class
 >>treatment has little tollorance for
 >those who aren't percieved as
 >>"first class" and where does this leave
 >the rest of us, the 80
 >>percent unemployed who may have more
 >than one disability and who
 >>may not be exactly "first class".

Can you prove the above statement?  Can you cite three instances in
which organizations such as the NFB, NAACP, NOW, AIM, LULAC, etc. have
demanded first-class treatment for their constituents but then lacked
compassion for those who through circumstances had not been able to
enjoy the fruits of first-class status?  And, while we're at it, perhaps
we'd better define "first-class citizenship".  You say that 80 percent
of the blind are not "first-class".  Nonsense!  All God's children are
first-class!  It is humanity that has imposed distinctions upon itself.

This is not to say that some are not more talented, skilled or more
fortunate than others.  It is merely to state that all deserve an equal
opportunity to succeed or fail on terms of equality with their fellow
human beings.

And while we're at it, let us put to rest the charge that NFB doesn't
care about the multihandicapped.  There is a Committee on the
Deaf-blind, a Committee on the Senior Blind and a group concerned with
multihandicapped blind children (headed by Collene Roth).  The Committee
on the Deaf-blind is headed by Boyd Wolfe and the Committee on the
Senior Blind is headed by Catharine Randall.

Yes, we of the NFB *do* care.  We believe, however, that blindness need
not be the limiting condition on how our members can perform.  We have
compassion for those who, through lack of training and opportunity,
haven't been able to succeed.  We do not, however, believe that it is in
their best interest to hand them a sop and to tell them that they should
be satisfied sitting in their rocking chairs.  We believe that everyone
should have the opportunity to succeed and that, to think otherwise,
sells people short.

I also cannot help reflecting that, in this day of Pan-Disability-itis
and the passion for services such as IL centers and supported employment
and services to the LD population, which, incidentally, I believe is a
larger population than the blind, *someboy* ought to look out for the
interests of the Best and the Brightest.  After all, they form a
constituency, too.  But NFB most definitely cares about those who
haven't been able to make it; we feel, however, that gimmicks and
gadgets and charity will not help them to succeed.

 BK> yOU'VE PUT IT WELL, AND i THINK THIS
 BK> IS ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE
 BK> FEDERATION THAT REALLY GRIEVES ME.

Bill, I must confess that it would appear to me that you haven't
involved yourself enough in the Federation to get the big picture.
That, of course, is your right.  But it would re refreshing if, just
once, those who criticized us would take the time -- really take the
time -- to see what we're about.

Having said this, I will admit that there are certain individuals from
whom the Federation seems not to be a congenial home.  There have been a
few people to whom I have recommended the Council as I thought it more
fitted their outlook on life.  But this is far different from bandying
habout the same old hackneyed charges that were going around twenty-odd
years ago.

 >>  hope i answered some of your
 >>questions.

 BK> pERHAPS YOU HAVE, BUT MOSTLY YOU'VE
 BK> JUST BROUGHT UP MORE QUESTIONS.
 BK> wHICH IS FINE BY ME, AS THAT'S HOW YOU LEARN AND GROW.

Agreed.  It certainly is worthwhile to question things and get things
straightened out.  It only becomes exasperating when it becomes clear
that the questions are being asked not to gain knowledge but to further
political ends.  I am not saying that you, Bill, are doing that.  YOu
have fallen victim to the anti-Federation propaganda that perennially
floats around.  Hence, my comments, as I believe that if, as you say,
you truly want to know "the way things are" you will listen to both
sides of the story.

Cheers!

Mike

P.S.:  Isn't it funny that no one objects to Democrats and Republicans
not agreeing  or the organizations of women against drunken driving --
MAD and RID, disagreeing.  But legislators, bureaucrats and the general
public seem absolutely amazed that "the blind" cannot agree.  I think
that David Tanner once pointed out on this echo that that got his gourd.
It does mine also.

It would be better, though, if we could agree.  I am unwilling, however,
to sacrifice principles or beliefs, in the quest for agreement.
-MF-
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be
 blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: Vendor Favoritism
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Keith Bucher <03 Jul 92 07:04> Steve Bauer wrote:

 SB> Dean Blazie is an outspoken NFB
 SB> member.  He refuses to ever go to an ACB
 SB> convention.  If he was smart, he'd go
 SB> to both especially this year
 SB> since they are not in the same week.

It seems to me that Blazie Engineering is selling plenty of Braille 'N
Speaks to NFB members and ACB members alike, regardless of which
convention(s) he attends.  IMHO the Braille 'N Speak sells itself.
Besides, it seems to me, Mr. Blazie has enough sense to go where there
are the most blind people, i.e., to the NFB Convention.  It's just good
business sense to go where the majority of customers are.  As for his
loaning BNSs to members of the NFB and not to the ACB, I cannot comment
as I was not at the ACB convention (one only has *so* much money) but
it's a free country and he can conduct his business (within the law) as
he chooses.

 SB> I'm sure it would help his
 SB> business.  On the other hand, if he
 SB> did go to an ACB convention, Lord
 SB> Jernigan and the power types would
 SB> give him so much crap he would
 SB> never be  able to stand it.  It's

Upon what evidence do you base the above assertion?  I know for a fact
that Hal Bleakley of Aids Unlimited sells to both NFB-ers and ACB-ers
without ill effects from NFB leaders.  As long as the philosophy isn't
compromised or something truly illegal or improprietous isn't done (as,
for example, if a prominent NFB-er were to run a House of Ill-repute),
the NFB leadership wouldn't care at all how a member made his/her money.
It'd be none of their business.

 SB> simple, either buy the Braille-Mate
 SB> from  TSI or someone else needs to
 SB> develop a Braille-N-Speak type
 SB> product and compete against him.

If one is concerned about ethics, given TSI's recent conduct re the
Braillemate and AER, I cannot see why anyone would *want* to buy a
Braillemate.  This is especially true when one compares the Braillemate
and Braille 'N Speak feature for feature and taking into account such
things as the add-on memory cards that the Braillemate requires when
determining the overall price of the two products.  As I said above, the
Braille 'N Speak practically sells itself!

 SB> Maybe TSI should loan ACB 50
 SB> Braille-Mates in Arizona.

Given the current configuration of the unit, they might have to in order
to sell the Braillemate to any but gullible agency and educator types.

Mike
... ** The blind are no longer willing to be second-class citizens. **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: nfb bbs censorship?? You
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hello, Tim.

In a message to All <03 Jul 92 19:49> Tim Cumings wrote:

 TC> With the renewed discussion about acb versus nfb, and the
 TC> claims of nfb's adherence to democratic principles, I have
 TC> anincident to share with Blinktalk readers about bbs's and
 TC> censorship.

It is debatable whether the following is censorship, but more of this
later.

 TC> In the July 1992 issue of Baltimore Magazine, there is an
 TC> article about the nfb and ,dr. Jernigan called Blind
 TC> Loyalty. I downloaded the text file of this article,
 TC> called loyalty.txt, from the Mass. Cummission For the
 TC> Blind bbs, (617)451-5327.
 TC> I foumd the article very interesting, and decided to upload
 TC> it to the nfb bbs, along with a message telling people
 TC> where they could find it on the bbs. I liked the article
 TC> because it gave _both_ sides of the story about the nfb
 TC> and dr. Jernigan. In fact, Dr. Jernigan was interviewed by
 TC> the author of the article.

The objectivity of the article seems to me, at the very least, to be
questionable.  Although Dr. Jernigan was interviewed as were others who
have no love lost for the NFB or for Dr. Jernigan, no attempt was made
to investigate the statements of those who criticized the NFB.  In
failing to do so, the article's author caused many half-truths and
misstatements of fact to be perceived as true because they were allowed
to go unchallenged.  In other words, I question whether _both_ sides
were *really* presented.

 TC> I was curious to see if the article would be left on the
 TC> nfb bbs for any interested people to read. Here's the
 TC> message I received from David Andrews.
 TC> "From:    David Andrews
 TC>           To:      Tim Cumings
 TC> Msg #1000, Jul-02-92 01:00:26Subject:
 TC> article about nfb It would seem that this article is of
 TC> great interest to you as you have left this message in
 TC> three areas of NFB NET, that I have found so far.  The
 TC> article is filled with lies, misrepresentations, enuendo,
 TC> and personal attacks on Dr. Jernigan.  I doubt that the
 TC> article will be released here. Why should we spend our
 TC> members hard earned money to give you
 TC> a forum to attack the NFB?

 TC> -+- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
 TC> + Origin: The VIBUG BBS: (617)767-2909
 TC> 14.4         ds/HST/ (1:101/460.0)

The seminal question is whether or not the refusal by Mr. Andrews (with
the blessing of many NFB members) to display the article is or is not
sensorship.  Let me get at the question by proposing the following
analogy:  In February and March of this year, Dr. James Bliss, President
of Telesensory, sent to members of AER letters openly attacking Blazie
Engineering's Braille 'N Speak and making many fallacious claims as to
the ability of Telesensory's competitor product, the Braillemate, to
promote Braille literacy.  Mr. Bliss did this, by the way, thru the use
of an AER membership list which he or Telesensory purchased.  The
February letter contained financial inaccuracies in the calculation of
the cost of a Braille 'N Speak 640 with peripherals versus the cost of a
Braillemate.  In addition, the *true* cost of a Braillemate (including
the special memory cards it requires for external storage of data if the
data is not transferred to a computer) was not stated.  Many protested.
They included NFB members, ACB members and the "nonalligned".
My purpose in relating this incident is not to rehash it but to pose the
following question:  should Braille Inn Speak Out, the BBS operated by
Blazie Engineering and whose SysOp is Brain Blazie, carry these letters?
I doubt that many would say "yes".  However, your logic in charging the
NFB with censorship in not allowing the Baltimore Magazine article to be
displayed on NFBNET is of the same nature.  NFBNET's purpose is to give
information about blindness in general and about the NFB in particular
and provide a medium thru which discussions about the NFB and its
philosophy may be carried on.  In addition, questions about the NFB, its
policies and philosophy can be answered.  Should we, the NFB, therefore,
allow public access to, and thereby give credence to, an article
containing many provable inaccuracies?  I think not.

You may object that, in fact, the article *was* objective and that it
fairly portrayed NFB and its detractors.  Although one could go on for
pages (and, if I guess rightly, over the next weeks, it will probably be
necessary to do so), citation of two inaccuracies of the article should
suffice to make my point.

First, the article, without question or comment, maintains that NAC, the
National Accreditation Council on Agencies Serving the Blind and
Visually Handicapped, is an "independent" body.  Nonsense!  For all but
a small fraction of its life, NAC was principally funded by the American
Foundation for the Blind (AFB).  For a short time, NIB (National
Industries for the Blind), which parcels out Federal contracts to
sheltered workshops, contributed funds to NAC until NIB was caught
lobbying Congress on behalf of NAC using Federal monies.  Whose money I
take, his song I sing.  Knowing all the facts, therefore, it is hard to
argue that NAC is truly independent of influence by the cabal of
agencies which has had a large say in the affairs of the blind for many
years.  Yet the Baltimore Mag article didn't even question the
statement and thus gave a wrong impression.

Again, the article makes much of the fact that the NFB in general and
Dr. Jernigan in particular did not participate in the drafting of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) until the eleventh hour, only
contributing one amendment to the act.  The article calls this "sad" and
"ironic".  It quotes a spokesperson for another disabilities
organization as saying that if all disabilities organizations followed
the NFB model, they'd never pull together.

First, this is *precisely* the problem.  Many of us in the NFB (as well
as many other blind persons including many in the ACB) see a real
danger in the growing Pan-Disability movement; there are so few blind
persons in comparison to those with other disabilities that, unless we
are careful, our needs and interests will be submerged in the quest to
serve those with other disabilities.  Hence, there is an urgent need for
separate agencies and organizations serving solely the blind to exist.
This does not mean that we cannot cooperate with organizations when it
is in our interest; it does mean that we must not cooperate blindly,
submerging our interests to those of other disabilities.  Thus, the NFB
tends to go its way, cooperating with other organizations when it's
productive to do so and not doing so when it would be counterproductive.

As to the Americans with Disabilities Act, many of us felt (and still
feel) that there was not a little hype involved with the ADA and that
the ADA might not necessarily be the best thing for the blind since the
invention of ears!  This suspicion, too, though not "politically
correct" today, is, I think, shared by a large number of blind people,
be they affiliated with an organization of the blind or not.  In fact,
some of us suspect that the ADA could prove harmful to the blind in its
emphasis on modifying the environment and "accommodations" rather than
upon training and opportunities for the blind.  In fact, many of us
feared that the ADA would be used as an excuse by public and private
entities to force the blind to use specialized services for the
handicapped (because they were required to be provided) whether they
were appropriate for the blind or whether the blind needed or wanted
them or not.  The amendment the NFB suggested (which was adopted into
the various titles of the ADA) guarantees that a person with a
disability can participate in programs that are not separate or
different from those provided to everyone else.  Thus, a blind college
student cannot be forced to live in "handicapped housing" and a blind
person cannot be forced to take "handicapped seats" on buses.

Yet the nature of this problem and the resulting amendment weren't even
*hinted* at by the Baltimore Mag article.  Thus was the public misled.

Is it any wonder, then, why we of the NFB refuse to have such shabby
journalism on our BBS?  I think not.

Censorship?  Emphatically not!

Regards,

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be
 blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hello, Steve!

In a message to Tim Cumings <05 Jul 92 10:28> Steve Bauer wrote:

 SB> It just goes to show that what I've
 SB> said for years is true.  Believe
 SB> and  do as Lord Jernigan says and
 SB> you'll be accepted in NFB.  Say or
 SB> do anything against the Lord or his
 SB> servants and you are history.  I'
 SB> I've never  called the NFB BBS and
 SB> don't plan to ever call it.

Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing how, if you don't
talk to us NFB members, how you can be so of your facts re the
relationship between the NFB leadership, the rank-and-file membership
and the attitude of NFB toward dissent?  It would seem only fair that,
before spouting a series of cliches on the subject, that you would, in
the spirit of free and open inquiry, investigate thoroughly the
situation by talking to us.  If, after that, and, having made sure of
your facts, you still hold us and our policies in disdain, that is, of
course, your privilege.  IMHO, the Bliblical adage applies, however:
Come let us reason together.

 SB> So if Jernigan says ACBers are loosers
 SB> one could also say that NFBers
 SB> are  loosers because they are so
 SB> sheltered in what they are told.

I cannot speak for others but, for my part, no one tells me what to
think.  If there's a policy that I don't like, I work to change it.

 SB> The Braille Monitor only runs
 SB> announcements regarding products for
 SB> sale from NFB members.  Doesn't that
 SB> tell you that members are
 SB> missingout  on many opportunitites and
 SB> products that are not sold or
 SB> offered  by NFB members?

Since when did Tandy Way join the NFB?  I bet he'd be *really* happy to
know of his elevated status!  I recall an announcement of his regarding
something to sell being in the Braille Monitor a while back.  I also
seem to recall a lot of other items announced in the Monitor whose
origin was not from NFB members.  C'mon, guys, let's deal in reality
here, not fantassy!

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... ** If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy folks? **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------






                                ******

                  End of Issue # 2802 of the Handicap Digest

                                ******
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU