X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  Bill McGarry <wtm@SHELDEV.SHEL.ISC-BR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.l-hcap
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:35:52 EDT
Reply-To:     Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
From:         Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
Subject:      Handicap Digest # 2824
X-To:         LHCAP <l-hcap@VM1.NODAK.EDU>

                             THE HANDICAP DIGEST

                                 Issue # 2824

                            Friday, July 24, 1992

Today's Topics:


                                ******

                           Blink Talk Digest # 661

                    Re: Turbo Braille Version 3 is ready
                                   Spanish
                                Tinytalk 1.20
                             Re: "blind loyalty"
                          nfb bbs censorship?? You
                          Insulin injections for b
                          Re: nfb bbs censorship??
                          Re: nfb bbs censorship??
                             Re: "blind loyalty"
                          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: Re: Turbo Braille Version 3 is ready
From: David.Tanner@f168.n129.z1.fidonet.org (David Tanner)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/168 - Braille Bank BBS, Pittsburgh PA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message of <19 Jul 92  17:57:25>, Daveed Mandell (1:129/89) writes:

 > >David:
 >Can you be a bit more specific on your
 >excitement re the future of braille printers?
 >What new ones are coming out besides the Everest and
 >the Juliet?
 >--Daveed-

Let us just say that I am told by a rep that has seen the
prototype, that one of the big access technology vendors is
preparing a interpoint printer for release late fall this year that
will print 40 characters per second, and will be priced around
$2,100.00.  If that happens it will absolutely change every thing
in terms of Braille printers for personal use.  At that kind of
price, with that kind of speed and being interpoint there will be
no other printer on the market that will be able to touch it.  The
only question will be Braille quality and reliability.

I am sure that if I were looking at Braille printers now I would
wait a few months if I didn't need it immediately.

        D. T.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!168!David.Tanner
Internet: David.Tanner@f168.n129.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Spanish
From: Chris.Bazzie@f101.n277.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Bazzie)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:277/101 - House Of Pancakes, Morgantown WV


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

PS>I've heard that Hadley no longer offers language courses and I was wondering
PS>if anyone knows where I can get some Braille Spanish instruction courses.  I
PS>took it in high school and we had braille books there so I know some must be
PS>around but I'm not sure where to look.

This isn't quite what you were asking for, but I've seen several
computer spanish tutors around in various places.  You could probably
get one that would work with a speach synth and learn that way- in fact,
that would seem like a really good way to learn spanish.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!277!101!Chris.Bazzie
Internet: Chris.Bazzie@f101.n277.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Tinytalk 1.20
From: Eric.Bohlman@p3.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.3 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

 DT>         Any kind of idea when 1.20 will be released?  How are things
 DT> going with it?

I'm working on fixing a few bugs that were detected at the last minute (they
only crop up in some unusual situations, but they're repeatable).  I also
gave in and implemented a "read current character" command for regular
cursor, independent cursor, and review mode.  The manual has been
substantially reorganized (for example, the discussion of window types no
longer comes several pages before the discussion of how to set them).  If
everything goes well, I'd expect it out next week.

 DT>         I understand that the new Echo has been delayed. Any idea how
 DT> soon they are going to release it, and will you extend the introductory
 DT> offer?

I talked to them last Thursday and it looked like they had it nearly ready.
I'm trying to determine whether what appears to be the one remaining problem
is an Echo problem or a Tinytalk problem (snippets of interrupted text coming
back).  There's one potential hardware problem; if you're using a battery and
it starts going low, the RS-232 voltages go out of spec even though the unit
can still talk, causing loss of handshaking.  They were considering putting in
a low-battery alert.

The introductory pricing will last as long as Echo (formerly Street) maintains
their introductory dealer price.  I've heard hints that they may extend it
beyond the end of August.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.3!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p3.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
From: Joseph.Miller@f1055.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Joseph Miller)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:261/1055 - The Keeping Room, Baltimore MD


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

JM>She was a responsible, independent journalist who deserves credit
JM>for covering what many of her peers are afraid to do with
JM>depth and honesty.

Well of course it seems that way to you.  After all, she took your
remarks, Bob Acosta's remarks, and Oral Miller's remarks at face value.
On the other hand she declined to interview people like Homer Page
because his opinions would be predictable.  She also left out remarks
made by people like Deane Blazie, Nell Carney, and Frank Kurt Cylke
because they weren't negative or critical.  In other words, she
systematically omits information from the very people who would be most
likely to know the truth about the charges to which she alludes. I
suppose if she did a story about the space program she'd lead off by
interviewing the President of the Flat Earth Society.  And he, like you,
would immediately hail her as a reputable journalist willing to take the
whole corrupt round-earth conspiracy to task.
___
 X OLX 2.2 X Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1055!Joseph.Miller
Internet: Joseph.Miller@f1055.n261.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 <08 Jul 92 07:08> Joseph Miller wrote:

JM> I have no doubt that
 JM> interested parties will gain
 JM> access to the article.  Nobody here
 JM> has any illusion that its absence
 JM> on NFBNET will keep it from being read
 JM> and spread around. I hope those
 JM> who read it use critical judgment and
 JM> pay close attention to the
 JM> structure of the article. Whatever the
 JM> author's motivation may have
 JM> been, the positive things seem much
 JM> better documented than the negative
 JM> things.
This is true.  The author did not seem very interested in investigating
critically the statements of those who were quoted making unflattering
statements about Dr. Jernigan or the Federation.  These statements seem
to have been taken at face value.  In order, I suppose, to compensate
for the lack of thorough documentation, the author quotes more
anti-Federation people than pro-Federation people.  Far be it from me to
speak ill of her, but it is hard to escape the suspicion that this is a
typical case of "the big lie".  Personally, I think the author was had
by those who would do the Federation ill and did not know enough to see
it coming.

Mike Freeman
 *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: Insulin injections for b
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, Carl.

I realize that you may be able, in this case, to use "sighted
techniques" to measure/inject your insulin.  However, should you find
yourself needing to develop alternative techniques to measure/inject
insulin, you might want to contact Doug Boone with the New Mexico
Commission for the Blind.  He has designed/built many devices to help
blind persons deal with their insulin.

Cheers!

Mike Freeman
... ** All your movements are controlled by physics. **
___ 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]

In a message to David Andrews <08 Jul 92 22:50> William Wilson wrote:

 > DA> You and others will call it
 > DA> sensorship.  I don't think so.  The
 > DA> BBS is paid for by NFB members for
 > DA> our and others use.  I have
 > DA> no intention to let it be used to
 > DA> attack us.  You all can do it
 > DA> here, on some one elses dime.

 WW> David,
 WW> Censurship is a fairly inflamatory
 WW> term, I'll admit, but at least
 WW> from my perspective, not allowing
 WW> something that is published to be
 WW> allowed on a board is indeed censurship!
 WW> Before you falsely assume I am saying
 WW> you don't have the right to
 WW> do just that on your board though, let
 WW> me plainly say that I sure as
 WW> heck believe I have the right to
 WW> control what is and what is not
 WW> available to my users on my computer!
 WW> I can't imagine me removing even
 WW> an article that was less than
 WW> complimentary to me, should anyone
 WW> actually be crazy enough to write one,
 WW> and I'd like to think that
 WW> instead I would be capable of
 WW> rebutting the article in a form that would
 WW> make me look all that much better, but
 WW> it is, as you said, the NFB's
 WW> board, so they can deal with these things as they wish.

Exactly.  In fact, you are correct; it *is* censorship and, IMHO, it's
justified.  If the article had been a truly carefully-researched
specimen of investigatory reporting, reporting thoroughly on those who
criticized the NFB in the articles, investigating their claims with as
much enthusiasm as seemed to be lavished upon lambasting Dr. Jernigan
and the Federation, I would be the first to advocate that the article be
left on NFBNET.  However, the article was really sloppy journalism and,
IMHO, had/has no place on a BBS (NFBNET) whose purpose, in part, is to
facilitate the spread of NFB philosophy.

Make no mistake; we tolerate free discussion, as I've said elsewhere; we
see little reason for publishing or facilitating the spread of articles
that do not do us justice, especially since they do not explain the
issues involved thoroughly and with objectivity.

Yes, we could let the article appear on the Board and write a long piece
refuting the arguments.  But the piece would have to be a whole book;
we've devoted one issue of the Monitor to the Acosta issue alone (April,
1983).  The questions also arise as to whether many would really be
interested in reading the *whole* story and whether it would *really*
convince anyone.  It seems to me that those who make it a point to
really *hate* the NFB are beyond all reason and convincing.  I'm sure
they feel the same way about us died-in-the-wool NFBers, maintaining
that we've been brainwashed.

Then why do we explain issues from an NFB point of view on this and
other echos?  First, there may be those who really *are* interested in
seeing both sides of an issue.  Second, even if we don't convince anyone
of our point of view, a record is being made here and our side of issues
should get some airing.

So you're absolutely right; it *is* censorship; all SysOps censor what
goes on their boards.  It's just that our taste in censorship didn't
agree with some folks' opinions.

 WW> I am a little disappointed that you
 WW> chose to add to the "NFB
 WW> bashing" claims that have mysteriously
 WW> arisen in this echo again
 WW> though!  David, despite the assertions
 WW> of just a few, there has been
 WW> very little NFB bashing here lately,
 WW> and frankly, until the convention
 WW> took a few participants away, there
 WW> has been alot of NFB philosophy
 WW> expounding!  I know you realize I do
 WW> sort of lean towards the left on
 WW> the matter of censurship, so tell me,
 WW> what would you have me do here?

Nothing.  If you want a clearly free-wheeling echo, you are correct in
just watching the fur fly.  On the other hand, it might be in order to
say something like "Stick to issues, not personalities".  But, as David
Andrews is the SysOp of NFBNET, so you're the head honcho of this echo
and, within FidoNet rules, can conduct it as you deem proper.  This is
as it should be.  (BTW, in your rules for this conference, you ask that
we not discuss your use of the word "handicapped".  Isn't *that*
censorship?)

 WW> If NFB members are going to cry out,
 WW> and in quite brazen fashion in some
 WW> cases, the NFB philosophy behind
 WW> certain issues, I think it is safe to
 WW> say we might expect a likewise
 WW> colorful response from the other side of
 WW> the fense every now and then, don't you agree?

Yup, sure do.  And I'll admit that until this article came out,
NFB-bashing was down to a dull roar.  However, this seems to have
inflamed everyone's passions to the point where assertions are being
made regarding the workings of NFB without proof and we're beginning to
show signs of arguing about personalities, not issues.

Although I have missed some posts, I would maintain that we of the NFB
have refrained from knocking ACB personalities on this Echo; I, for one,
have stuck to issues.  It would seem reasonable, therefore, for those
who adhere to the ACB philosophy and/or who are ACB members or who are
"nonalligned" to do likewise, that is, stick to issues.

I'm not saying that those who do otherwise can't do so; I'm just
pointing out the contrast.

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




------



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]

In a message to William Wilson <09 Jul 92 09:31> Carla Campbell wrote:

 CC> Well put, Willie.  I'm actually rather
 CC> surprised that David saw fit to
 CC> remove the article-- but not because
 CC> anyone has any "right" to hate it
 CC> up there.  Rather, I'd have thought
 CC> having it available as fodder for
 CC> debate and discussion might have
 CC> produced productive conversation--
 CC> whether it would have been a
 CC> collective move to counter the article's
 CC> assertions or whatever.  Kind of like
 CC> reading things with which you
 CC> disagree in Political Science courses
 CC> and then having a fun/educational
 CC> time tearing them to shreds.  But
 CC> then, I've never had a conventional
 CC> approach to information.

 CC> Information is only as powerful as you
 CC> make it, to my way of thinking.

Hi, Carla.

Let me respond in two ways.  Before doing so, however, let me say that I
enjoy debating (if it's to some purpose) and I tend to subscribe to the
"Let a hundred flowers bloom" school, believing that any philosophical
or political system worth its salt should be able to stand the heat.

Having said this, though, let me say first that all the negative hoopla
in the article was adduced without proof but was done skillfully enough
that someone not thoroughly acquainted with the events described in
passing wouldn't know it.  Although we could refute the article, point
by point, it would take quite a ptome (since, without chapter-and-verse
proof, no one who opposed us would believe us) and, frankly, we don't
have the time to put in on that sort of no-win situation; our time is
better spent dealing with the real problems of the blind.  Second, even
a "free press" such as, say, the Voice of America maintained itself to
be, never broadcast extensively from, say, Radio Moscow; I assume the
reason was that SWLers were assumed to be able to turn the radio dial
and find it for themselves.  Likewise with this article; it's on the MCB
BBS for anyone to grab; there's no validation wait or anything; I
grabbed it within five minutes of my first login.  Why should we spend
disk space on it when others are willing to do so.

Third (I just thought of another one), if the article had been truly
investigatory and had been as zealous about subtly criticizing those
whom it  quoted as having a dislike for the NFB and Dr. Jernigan as it
was in slanting everything it said (or almost everything, anyway) about
the NFB, I think that NFB members might have been more inclined to leave
the article on the board.

The problem is that most of this has been said before and the charges
have all been disproved before; it seems, though, to do little good.  I
suspect David Andrews said to himself:  "Why bother?"

Cheers!

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

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




------



Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
From: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Jamal Mazrui)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/460.0 - VI/BUG, Holbrook MA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi Doug!  I agree that it was not necessary to mention that I am black.
 I don't think mentioning it, however, is as bad as you say.  A large
percentage of Baltimore's population is black and it may be of interest
to them as reads to know that I am too.  Our society has not yet
progressed to the stage where we can be color blind in how we treat
issues.  Jernigan does not acknowledge this, but I think there are
issues at the intersection of being blind and black, blind and female,
blind and gay, etc.  Therefore, an organization truly concerned with
the betterment of blind people should strive for representation among
diverse constituencies of blind people, both within its membership and
leadership.  The fact that the NFB makes almost no effort to do that is
significant.

Amy Cuningham also described the patriarchial culture at NFB
headquarters.  It may not be related to blindness per se, but I think a
lot of women will be glad to be informed of this.

Regards,

Jamal

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460.0!Jamal.Mazrui
Internet: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
From: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.0 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

First, let me say thanks for responding to my question, rather than to
my politics. I appreciate the articulate response and your ideas on the
subject.

 MF> negative hoopla in the article was adduced without proof but
 MF> was done skillfully enough that someone not thoroughly
 MF> acquainted with the events described in passing wouldn't know
 MF> it.  Although we could refute the article, point by point,

Nah-- what I had in mind when I wrote that I was surprised the article
was not left for "internal debate" on the NFB BBS was not that you or
your organization would want to refute it point-by-point, but more that
it might feed discussion on how to counter (positively, not by refuting
this particular article) what NFB members say are misperceptions of the
organization.  Seems to me that a group concerned with the image of
blind people ought, also, to be able (and interested in) promoting its
own organizational image to potential members as well as to the
government, airlines and television networks.  I merely thought that a
careful study of the way the organization is percieved by some (whether
the perception is eronious or not) might serve the NFB well. Knowing thy
enemy and all that stuff.

But then, I have heard from a number of members and ex-members, alike,
that "internal debate" runs a bit against the grain.  I think that's a
shame, since, if incorporated and sanctioned, it often makes a structure
stronger, while it can only weaken if done covertly.

To use your Voice of America Analogy, I know that, while the VOA did not
broadcast from Moscow, the Soviet government certainly listened and
discussed its broadcasts internally, because they felt it to be in their
best interests to know what the Soviet population was hearing about
them.  They then ran carefully-scripted "counter reports" on their own,
domestic radio programs to make the VOA broadcasts seem absurd (which
most of them were, in their extremeism)  Of course, these
carefully-scripted "counter broadcasts" were equally absurd in their
extremism, and did not serve the Soviet government very well.  True or
not, the VOA and other images of the outside world did lead the Soviet
people to question their leadership.  One perspective was as absurd as
the other, but the "covert" nature of the Voice broadcasts lent them
undue credibility in the minds of the Soviet population.
Re-transmitting VOA programming from Moscow might not have been such a
bad investment for the Soveit government as it might seem...

Secondly, were *I* an NFB member who knew what in that article was true
and what was not, I would have a good old time parodying it and
chortling about it in the company of my fellow Federationists.  But my
idea of humor has gotten me in trouble before, and I suspect it would in
this instance, as well. ;-)

The Soviets also undervalued the power of humor.  It is absolutely
astounding how many groups and organizations undervalue the power of
humor.  A good situation comedy about the Voice of America and the
people who probably broadcast it would probably have gone a lot further
than fifty news "counter broadcasts."  It would definitely have done
more to bolster internal morale than self-righteousness ever could.

But back on topic... you are correct: the article is available to any
NFB-Net users who want it, if they dial another number somewhere to pick
it up.  That is, as I noted in my first post on the matter, why I don't
consider this to be a "free speech issue" at all.  I do not question the
*right* of the operators of the system to remove the article.  I don't
even question the *ethics* of it.  I merely speculate on the probable
loss of opportunity for self-examination and, well, a bit of fun.  sure,
people can still talk about the article, having read it elsewhere, but
somehow I doubt it's happening in a constructive or entertaining vein if
it's happening at all.  the removal of the article is bound to have had
a chilling effect on any such discussion.

I beg your pardon if this seems exceptionally "anti-NFB."  It is
intended constructively, albeit criticism.  Often, it *appears* (from
the outside) that the NFB is too concerned with how it comes off to
sighted people to worry about selling its philosophies to the rest
(majority) of the blind population.  And I do mean "selling"-- not
preaching.

Most of us, after all, belong to no organization for the blind.  For
many of us, it is not "laziness" or "disinterest" which keeps us
unaffiliated, but the belief that no existing organization of the blind
represents our views and needs and because we feel that too much energy
is used up on petty politics within the existing organizations.  I know
that I do not feel that my right to have differing opinions on some
matters and to act on those opinions would be respected, were I to join.
(I don't belong to a church, either-- I have yet to find one which
promotes my particular view of the Universe or which tolerates my being
vocal on that which they do not promote.) Since I do not see eye to eye
on each and every issue, and would not be untrue to my beliefs by being
silent, I doubt that I would be welcome. Likewise with many people, I
imagine.  Without intending it to sound self-important, I think,
collectively, it's the loss of the organizations who cannot harness our
enthusiasm on *some* issues.

Maybe none of these things are true, but until one of the organizations
actively *cares* what we think, I think there will remain many of us out
here who could be contributing energy to the NFB or some other
organization who can't be bothered to give it the time of day any more
than it can be bothered with what we think or believe.

Sure, NFB'ers know about the ACB's stance on them, but do you really
know about (or care about)the perception of the NFB amongst we, the
non-alligned blind population?  Articles like "Blind Loyalty" do
contribute to our perception of the NFB, and, for that reason, alone,
ought to warrant calm, rational counter-discussion.  Perhaps you truly
believe no one is listening.  I'm here to tell you that ain't so.  Some
of us are watching closely, hoping to see what we're looking for some
day-- in the NFB or anywhere else.

                                                 --Carla

... Read what I mean, not what I write!

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org




------






                                ******

                  End of Issue # 2824 of the Handicap Digest

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