Diane,
I am sure that if there are any other blind participants reading
this echo, they're getting a howl out of this conversation!  Your
obvious total knowledge of computer use by blind people is based
upon your knowing a single individual, while mine is not only ten
years of moderating the Fidonet visual disabilities conference,
working in the adaptive screen reading market for longer than
that, and during that time, literally dealing with THOUSANDS of
other blind computer users, it's as someone who has been awarded
by the American Council of the Blind for his contributions to
access to computers by blind people!  Now that you've forced me
to shamelessly tout my credentials, let me deal with your obvious
naivety with the subject!
 DL> But I'm not spreading misinformation, as this information has been the
 DL> result of being around a rather good blind friend of mine who, much to
 DL> my loss, moved to Kansas from here just last year.
You simply have no idea what a rare treat this friend was, do
you?  As I said, I've dealt with THOUSANDS of blind computer
users, and I only faintly recall 1 who was using a "Commie", and
that was 10 years ago and not even with speech!  As I said in my
original message, if there is any blind person out there reading
this, or any message in Fidoland for that matter, with a
Commodore 64 computer, speak up and shock the sugar out of all of
us who actually know about adaptive computer access, unlike
Diane!
 DL> clue to your jumping off without looking first (so to speak) is your
 DL> last paragraph where you declare that you just plain ole disagree with
 DL> me period...which explains your jumping to an unfair conclusion here.
I jumped to no unfair conclusion, I merely clarified that your
using BLIND people as an excuse for not posting the Sweden
Calling DXers here was invalid!  Actually, I could have taken an
even more defensive position and pointed out that some blind
people would even call it PATRONIZING!
 DL> benefit of those who can't.  While Apple speech systems might be "more
 DL> common" as you say, they've also been, traditionally, overpriced by MS
 DL> DOS system standards.
Hell, I haven't seen a blind person using a talking Apple for
years either, I merely said they were more common than talking
Commodores, which I've NEVER seen!  I could go into great detail
as to why Dos totally took over the market for talking computers,
and how the cost is actually quite a bit less than it was for the
original talking Apple with it's need for proprietary talking
software, but I'm sure you'll still insist my motives are other
than trying to enlighten you in a subject of which you have no
knowledge!
 DL> My own eyes work, and I've seen my blind friend's system firsthand; so
 DL> you're not exactly in the best position to tell me that my eyes were
 DL> lying to me when I saw what I saw.
Diane, your eyes might work, but your interpretation of the
printed word is actually quite unique!  Telling you how rare the
use of the Commodore computer by the blind was is a FACT, it's
not calling you a liar when you claim you saw it, which
incidentally, you didn't even do till this message!  Explain to
me, however, that you're witnessing of this single blind
individual using a Commodore computer translates to your
statement, blind people, for the most part dependant upon Commie
64 computers", being valid???  You can come back to me with all
the claims you want of my statements being based upon my
disagreement with you over the posting of the Sweden Calling
DXers, but that doesn't change the fact at all that you're wrong,
and I'm right!  There isn't a single blind person reading this
with a Commie computer Diane, and I never had a single blind
person log onto my BBS with a Commodore!  (Btw, I've had
approximately 2000 different blind people log onto BlinkLink over
the past 10 years!)
WW>>echos!  Frankly, I haven't been bothered one bit by the posting
WW>>of the Sweden Calling DXers in this echo, as even though I
WW>>haven't read one of them, skipping them has been as easy as
WW>>falling off a log, and if there is another blind person out there
WW>>who can't say the same thing, I'd like to hear from them!  Sorry,
WW>>but I simply don't agree with you or my old friend Mike on this
WW>>one, as it simply isn't any big deal, even to those of us who are
WW>>blind!
WW>>                                        Willie
 DL> And now we have arrived at the real crux of the disagreement here.
 DL> It would seem to me that one who is so fond of SCDX as you are would
 DL> seek to find it in a more likely forum than this one because just about
 DL> everybody ELSE normally looks for satellite info in a satellite forum.
I wouldn't normally quote my own words, but I wanted to give you
another chance to tell us which ones of them lead you to the
conclusion I'm so fond of Sweden Calling DXers?  I thought it was
fairly clear when I said I never read one of them that I don't
even have an opinion on the publication, merely that its
inclusion in this echo is no big deal to me, or to any other
blind individual as you claimed!  We can skip a message just as
quickly as anyone, no doubt about it!
Yes Diane, what you said is indeed MISINFORMATION, a fact easily
demonstrated by participating in any of the Fidonet disability
related echos, any of the Internet disability related mailing
lists or newsgroups, or frankly, by meeting any more than the
single, quite rare blind individual you knew and upon which
you're basing your entire knowledge of blind computer access!
There are many of us out here willing to teach you about this
stuff, but you're going to have to learn to LISTEN!
                                        Willie
 
... BlinkTalk - the Electronic Voice of the Blind!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.3 BT006
---------------