You are absolutely right!!!

This useless conversation is only providing that
understanding to the disabled as to what their
respective human rights under the ADA are, and to how to
resolve problems that have nothing to do with
technology.  Or does it?

It was intolerance that kept the ADA from being enacted
not until about 10 years ago...  It was that same
intolerance that kept the disabled suffering needlessly
for centuries.

And my thought is, "What good is technology without our
disabled rights"?

Rudy
.
.
.
> The name of this organization is EASI, "Equal Access to Software and
> Information."  I am open to any point of view concerning access to software
> and information.  However, EASI  is filling up each day with email that has
> nothing to do with technology or providing the crucial electronic tools
> necessary for individuals with disabilities to compete effectively in the
> 21st  century.  If you want to relive the past, do it on your own time.
>
> Richard Jones
> Assistant Director
> Disability Resources for Students
> Arizona State University, Main
> 480-965-1234
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Rudy Caris [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   Friday, January 12, 2001 12:05 PM
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        Re: Law penalizes the able?
>
> No doubt, and I understand the point of the argument and
> what is being said.
>
> The arena where our battles should be fought however,
> has a whole new set of rules, and is not given to
> emotional pleadings, grandstanding, or such things.
>
> I picked one fight that took seven years to conclude.
> As a result, many disabled today are enjoying some of
> their rights they would otherwise not have had.
>
> Conversely, there have been issues where I chose NOT to
> rattle the cages of the powers that are.
>
> The sympathetic vote is a powerful ally that should not
> be abused or overused as the case might be.
>
> Indulging in that practice only serves to desensitize
> our "friends" who can help us in our battles.  Which
> indeed they are.
>
> Rudy
> .
> .
> .
> > Yes, you do have to pick your fights. Selma Alabama was chosen for a
> reason
> > I do believe, as was Montgomery. I don't want to get this wrong though,
> and
> > disappoint my former professor (right Norm). On the other hand though, you
> > can't be so quiet as to have the other side nickel and dime you to death.
> > Can't wine about everything. But there does come a time when some one can
> > take only so much.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > "Practice means nothing. Games mean everything."
> >     -- Thurmond Moore
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Poehlman <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Law penalizes the able?
> >
> >
> > > yes, it makes a difference.  the disabled is a bit different than
> > > either of those you describe.  for one thing, we don't have the
> > > choices that any of them did due to functional limitations.
> > >
> > > This is the 21st century the last I looked.  The backlash against us
> > > over stuff like this can be more detramental than the present reality.
> > > if you have 100 guood cases, the one bad one that you have will wipe
> > > all the good of them away.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rick Sinclair" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: January 11, 2001 4:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Law penalizes the able?
> > >
> > >
> > > Rudy,
> > >
> > > On the other hand, squeaky wheels get the grease.  Neither the black
> > > movement, nor the womens' movement, had much success until they
> > > started
> > > raising an unholy ruckus that got media attention.  The womens'
> > > movement
> > > was a phenomenal result, actually changing the perspective of
> > > virtually
> > > all of society, but they had to burn their bras to do it. (Never could
> > > figure why that made a difference, but it apparently did!)  When we
> > > give
> > > an inch, we lose a mile.
> > >
> > > I know what you mean, and I don't really disagree with strategic
> > > planning, but sometimes being "totally unreasonable" is what make the
> > > difference.  If nothing changes, nothing changes.
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > >
> > > Rudy Caris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are absolutely correct Rick.
> > > >
> > > > But let's go about asserting our rights with a measure
> > > > of reason, and not stand on all of our rights, all of
> > > > the time:  Unless of course we are sure that we will win
> > > > and advance the cause for all of us.  o.k?
> > > >
> > > > Lost ground is harder to regain.
> > > >
> > > > Rudy
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > > Rudy Caris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "3.      Reasonable modifications refers to the hundreds
> > > > > > of thousands of disabled persons world wide, who are
> > > > > > just barely trying to survive day-by-day to meet
> > > > > > their "basic needs, and the necessaries to sustain their
> > > > > > lives."  Golfing is the furthest thing from their
> > > > > > minds.  Whom-so-ever, is kidding who?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody is kidding anyone.  This is a real case.  Casey Martin is a
> > > > > professional golfer, that is what he does.  The golf course is his
> > > > > workplace, and "reasonable accommodation" - a golf cart - is not
> > > > > unreasonable on the face of it.  If they feel its an advantage,
> > > make
> > > > > carts available to the whole field!  I am sure it would cut down
> > > on the
> > > > > interminable shots of some pro slowing walking up the 18th to make
> > > his
> > > > > final putt.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think its a mistake to consider the law only applies to the
> > > worst off
> > > > > of the disabled.  It should be simply a cost of doing business,
> > > without
> > > > > having to wring pity from the hearts of onlookers, to be
> > > accommodated.
> > > > > The day the White House needs a wheelchair ramp or a TTY to
> > > accommodate
> > > > > the President, we will know we have won.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rick Sinclair
> > > > > SNA
> > >