Dear Marie and GDUC Listers.
Although I thought my message, containing the statements to which you
refer, was sent toa n individual and not to the list, it makes little
difference in the long run. Each of us are entitled to our philosophies,
our perspectives about why things work or do not work in specific places.
First, Marie, no one, in their right mind, knowing the strong proactive you
and Chris have taken on many issues, would or could talk about passivity in
your regard. This is likewise true of otheres on this list. I meant no
slur to anyone in particular, especially withr espect to members on this
list who are more forward-looking and aggresive than many I have met.
Otherwise, very frankly, I would not be a member of the group.
As you correctly point out, there are historical reasons that explain
differences between the attitudes and approaches adopted by blind consumer
groups in different countries. It is because of these historical factors
that Canadians, by no means limited to blind people, adopt, in my view, a
less militent, more passive attitude toward legislation they dislike, e.g.
the PST and GST taxes. Please forgive me if, at times, I become a bit
cynical when I hear of people's expectations about the outcome of meetings,
set up between the police, as in the present instance, and we, the blind
consumers. Failure to recognize that such meetings serve little more than
to play into the hands of the real wrong-doers here, suggests some naevete
on our part, a situation that frustrates me a lot. Many of us seem to
think that meetings, important as they can be at times, will serve to solve
issues that, as you and Chris know all too well, can be solved only by
concerted, fighting back, in the tactics and with the language that those
we resist know best.
No. Do not interpret my statements, not intended for the group, as
including everyone, not at all. I was speaking in generalities,
generalities that, Chris, and perhaps you, as long time advocates for the
blind, will recognize as true. Do not interpret them, please, as
pertaining to specific individuals or to specific situations.
Respectfully.
At 07:54 PM 8/13/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>A recent poster to this list suggested that the I C Q scripts were JAWS 3.2
>scripts--and to use them with 3.3.026-- one had to put the scripts onto 3.2,
>add 3.3026 and then do the merge. Well, what if one tries those I C Q
>scripts with 3.3026? and since we will soon get 3.3.1, I am sure people
>will still want to use I C Q with 3.3.1. What I am suggesting is that this
>script thing needs to be better explained.
>
>also, I was one of the people who used the MONEY 98 scripts. For me, MONEY
>98 works just fine. Does the situation implied in the previous paragraph
>apply to those MONEY 98 scripts? Are the MONEY 98 scripts only for 3.2; or
>will they work with 3.3 (if you don't merge)? Will they work with 3.3.1? Of
>course no one knows anything about 3.3.1. but my point is that the need for
>scripts is universal. People will want to use MONEY and enjoy usingI C Q.
>
>I raise this issue for those gifted beta testers out there (whoever they
>are) so that this script situation will become much more understandable
>when 3.3.1 arrives.
>
>Also to those spanish users, please will any of you be serving as beta
>testers for 3.3.1?
>
>If any one is using 3.3.026 with the I C Q scripts (and you did not merge
>3.2 and 3.3) and the I C Q works, write me "off list".
>
>thanks in advance
>
>-
>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
Jerry
-
Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
