I agree with you 100 per cent Rick.  That's what I thought EASI was for as
well.  Perhaps he was mistaken and thought he was in the Jaws for Windows
list?  I am not sure.

Ann E. Wisdom

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Sinclair [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: January 2, 2001 11:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Days of Plenty Are Over at Free
Internet Services (fwd)


Pardon me?  I understood EASI was open to discussion of all
disabilities, although perhaps physical disability might be considered a
justified limitation, given the scope of the mental disability field.
They deserve their own list.

The idea that this list is limited specifically to blindness is new to
me. I thought issues related to hearing loss were acceptable here, as
well.  If not, tell me, and I will get off the list.

Rick Sinclair
SNA


David Poehlman wrote:
>
> the point I was making though incase you missed it is that a
> discussion outside the bounds of physical disabilities specifically
> blindness is not appropriate for this list.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rudy Caris" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: January 01, 2001 9:25 PM
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Days of Plenty Are Over at Free
> Internet Services (fwd)
>
> You're absolutely correct David.  Many disabled in some
> walks of life, do not need an advocate as they have what
> they want.  The disabled from the other side of the
> track that I'm talking about, get seriously clobbered
> everyday by society with a huge 2x4 on many issues, of
> which accessibility is one major area.  These are the
> ones who need our attention.
>
> At this juncture of common cordiality, let's just agree
> to amicably disagree.
>
> Rudy
> .
> .
> .
> > I understand but still disagree with your position.  the disabled
> are
> > a cross section of all walks of life no more and no less effected by
> > these kinds of things than any other class of individuals.  you are
> > using a different deffinition of disability.