From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why the NFB   Hello listers,
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Richard Webb wrote:
> I too oppose tactile warnings, beeping lights, and other such needles
> gizmos.  You've probably seen some of the letters I've sent to
> publications when they feature such needless technology.  I can
> presume, however that the reason we would take part in such
> foolishness at all is to try to demonstrate to the researchers that
> there is no substitute for good orientation and mobility training.  A
> person with such skills does not necessarily need the "talking fence"
> or truncated domes.
The reason you propose for our involvement in tha business makes a lot of
sense, except perhaps in the cost to the taxpayers.  (I don't know the
cost, but I think it was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.) I even
considered that this might have been our aim at the time.  If so, then the
failure of the "electronic fence" was a kind of success for us, and we
might have done well to say so and set forth the reasons.
Be sure that I agree with much of your eloquent message.  I'm sorry I
won't have the chance to meet you in Dallas.  (This afternoon, I made my
flight reservations for my first convention since 1990.) Take care!
Al
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------