I know there will be furious complaints that this was published here, but I cannot thank you enough, Karen, for posting this. This made my night. Please write to me off-list and tell me how I can write to this fine gentleman, and tell me how on earth this is an article I have never seen before! It's phenomenal! Christine On Apr 28, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Ricardo, > I can think of two. > There is a special category in all social security administration payments > specifically for the blind...but the way it is defined is not especially > positive. > granted there is the assumption that providing something in braille works for > everyone too, never mind less than ten percent of those experiencing > blindness read it. > A blindness advocate sent the below to me a few years back. it is important. > I am still laughing at the suggestion that the Ada with all its logistical > delays and judicial walls mayhem and years of poor movement is the place to > turn. > I can count three banks so far that claim privacy laws and homeland security > regulations overrule the Ada...so they need not make their website > accessible. > things are better in the UK because they like much of the rest of the world > use the United Nations treaty on the rights for people with disabilities... > Access is a human right, end of discussion. > it is never a question of if you must provide access, it is how and how fast. > far more flexible dictionary definition in theory and far faster a > mechanisms structure for getting things done. > Not the rule of law in the states because...the Ada will fix everything. > the ebook situation proves how correct that is to be sure. > and in most cases for United Nations ratified countries, you are not > working with the sort of thinking like that at social security. you are > blind you have no value, so let's keep you on public assistance for life, or > we cover your rent, and you cannot do anything so why do you want a computer > etc. > Here is my friends article. > Commentary > > Time to Rethink Our Own Declarations of Independence > > By William Loughborough > > For the first few years of our lives, all of us are totally dependent > on others for survival. Then, after discovering that we can survive > without a full-time personal attendant -- usually "Mommy" -- we think > that we are fully independent. > > There used to be a widespread notion of an individual's absolute > independence from everyone and everything. It was -- sometimes > grudgingly -- acknowledged that we were dependent on others for many > things, but there was still the feeling that we were somehow > independent of being beholden to everybody else for essentially > everything. > No one seriously considers him or herself, in that sense, > "independent" > any longer. Every time there is a need for help, our mutual > dependence > is emphasized, whether it is because we need someone to keep the > power > grid running or to turn us over in bed to avoid pressure sores. > Somehow, the latter sort of assistance is regarded widely as a > "special > accommodation" because, after all, the overwhelming majority of us > can turn over by ourselves. > > The truth is, we never get over needing special accommodation. > Whether > it is because of others growing our food or keeping our air and water > safe or teaching us how to stay alive, we are all highly > interdependent. We are all in this together and, luckily, we are > dependent on one another. > > In point of fact, the entire global electrical distribution system is > a special accommodation for those individuals who, unlike blind people, > cannot read in the dark and thus have a "special need" for manmade > illumination. But blind people are taxed with furnishing this special > accommodation that they have no special need for. Similarly, there > are billions of chairs, mostly seldom used, wherever people gather in > groups, but people who bring their own rolling chairs are taxed to > provide this seating service for those who failed to furnish their > own chairs. > > Of course, most of society sees it the other way around, but the fact > is that if everybody learned to read Braille and used wheelchairs it > would be a huge savings for society. Because we have for so long > considered "difference" as a sort of punishable inferiority, we think > those who fit certain categories (for example, the lame, halt or > blind) > are being given undeserved entitlements while those who makes the > rules > are considered automatically eligible for their own ease and comfort. > Lighting is "affordable," but environmental accessibility for certain > functionally diverse people is not. We never ask how we can afford > aircraft carriers but always question housing vouchers for poor > people > who must sleep in doorways. > > For a long time, people with different levels of functionality have > been labeled as having special needs that create a burden on society. > They are put into labeled groups and often discriminated against -- > sometimes very substantially -- just for being different, despite the > fact that their functional diversity is what makes it possible for > humanity to survive and evolve. > > Diversity is essential to the selection process necessary to prevent > our species from going the way of all the others that became too > specialized to survive in an ever-changing world. > > So rather than think of individuals as "independent," we should > consider ourselves "interdependent" and, most important, not be put > into some arbitrary category and relegated to the fringes of society. > It is not popular to say "we are all disabled," but there can be no > argument that each of us has his own particular talents and > shortcomings. This diversity should be celebrated rather than > punished. > > A policy of "separate but equal" doesn't just affect those who are > put > into some "disability box," but also the society that puts them there > to suffer often terrible consequences. There is no longer any > question > that accessibility to what is offered by our culture is a basic human > right, equal to any others. > > By continuing to accept mainstream views of disability, we deny the > undeniable: Compared to whoever is the best in a certain field, we > are > all disabled, unless we can compose as well as Mozart did at age 10, > or > putt as accurately as Tiger Woods, for example. > > A speech impediment caused by cerebral palsy is not a reason to be > denied the essentials of education or, worse, to be incarcerated in a > setting that has been shown to lead to abuse, neglect or even death. > A > person who has no means of using the mouse on a computer should not > be > denied access to the World Wide Web. > > Another downside to continuing to speak of ourselves as disabled is > that it puts us in the position of essentially "playing the pity > card" > to reach our goals. What we're saying is that, if not for our > disability, we are just like everyone else. Why draw attention to our > differences? > > The way in which each of us is like everyone else is that we are > different. That is important for the survival of the species. The > world > needs, for example, biographical-, neurological- and mobility-diverse > people to help our species evolve. > > So, how are we to assert our independence? Probably by realizing just > how dependent we are - and how closely related. Accessibility should > be > for everyone, everywhere, always. > > The "diversity model" must replace the "medical model" and the > "social > model." What should be "fixed" is not our differences, but society's > reluctance to recognize our importance to cultural evolution. It's > not > the wheelchair that disables us, it's the stairs. > > William Loughborough has come to the above conclusions because of his > association with Javier Roma?ach of Madrid, Spain, from whose book > (in Spanish) "El Modelo de la Diversidad" this article is derived. A > more "academic" distillation can be found at > > http://www.boobam.org/Innecesarios.htm. > __________________________________________________________ > > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ricardo Walker wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Keep in mind, fair doesn't always mean equal. I'm sure if we looked hard >> enough, we can find some services offered exclusively to those who are >> visually impaired and or blind. >> >> Ricardo Walker >> rica...@appletothecore.info >> Twitter:@apple2thecore >> www.appletothecore.info >> >> On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Jenny Keller <jlperd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In my opinion, accessible movies, TV shows, appliances, etc, should fall >>> under the ADA. >>> >>> Not to be politically incorrect here, but if people in wheelchairs can get >>> them for free and most places are made to be accessible for them, and the >>> deaf get closed captioning for almost every TV show and eventually DVD, and >>> TTY phones and free relay services, then why isn't it mandatory that we get >>> the same consideration. >>> >>> The fact is, we don't, and in my opinion, if we have to go to other sources >>> to get it because this wonderful country of ours, who makes other >>> disabilities have accessible products and services as mandatory, then we >>> have do do it until we get our fair shake. >>> >>> It's fairness to all, or it shouldn't be for any. >>> >>> Go red, white, and blue:( >>> >>> Jenny >>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Christine Grassman wrote: >>> >>>> Arguably, anything beyond the things required for daily living is a >>>> luxury. Plenty of people do not have computers or TV's. I personally have >>>> found a greater appreciation for movies and television shows when they are >>>> described, and it is exceedingly frustrating when one cannot watch a >>>> foreign film or dialogue-poor show. The level of audio description in the >>>> UK versus what is available in the U.S. is astounding -- in fact, the bulk >>>> of the audio description is done in Great Britain. I remember not going to >>>> action movies with peers when I was younger, or not being invited, because >>>> no one wanted to describe them to me. I remember people becoming annoyed >>>> when my mother quietly described what was going on in a movie. >>>> Even important information on news broadcasts is flashed across screens. >>>> If it is possible to accommodate the print-disabled and visually impaired >>>> in one country, it is possible in another. We should not have to pick and >>>> choose among "luxuries" -- Shopping for appliances is another nightmare; >>>> I am tired of having to get someone to go over touch screens and controls >>>> with me so that I can memorize, mark controls, or make charts so that I >>>> can use something for which I paid full price. Even companies which >>>> advertise that they have "accessible manuals" either do not actually >>>> provide them or only provide them in shorter, slimmed-down versions. >>>> If something is accessible to people who want it and can afford it, it >>>> should be accessible to all. Not only is their a fairness component, but a >>>> social component: culturally, experientially, we are better integrated >>>> into the social fabric of our societies when we have independent, >>>> real-world access to the things our peers take for granted. >>>> Christine >>>> show >>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Eugenia Firth wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi guys. >>>>> I love audio description as much as any blind person could. Before you >>>>> couldn't get them, I bought several movies on those tapes, movies I >>>>> wanted to watch again. However, and maybe I'm showing my age here, but I >>>>> consider audio description to be a luxury for us. I watched movies and TV >>>>> just fine before we got it. >>>>> >>>>> Computer accessibility, however, including the Internet's accessibility, >>>>> has become an increasingly frustrating necessity. I don't have statistics >>>>> to back up my opinion, but I think we delude ourselves if we think we are >>>>> a money-making proposition. Poor Apple has been braver than everybody >>>>> else by jumping into the quicksand of accessibility. If the good folks in >>>>> Cupertino are sorry they they made the plunge, they are being smart >>>>> enough to be quiet about it. I think they will be better off than >>>>> everyone else in that regard eventually, especially when the feds get >>>>> involved in evaluating accessibility the education arena. At least Apple >>>>> will have no trouble, unlike others, proving that the iPad, etc. is >>>>> accessible to blind and other disabled students. >>>>> >>>>> A blind friend of mine was asking me about these new vending machines >>>>> that touch screens. He was asking if there was an iPhone app to control >>>>> those things because he's concerned that he won't even able to get a cold >>>>> drink without extra help otherwise. As it is, at least at his work, he >>>>> can count the buttons. I have another blind friend whose electric oven >>>>> went out, and she a terrible time finding an accessible one. My microwave >>>>> is still partially inaccessible since my husband has yet to put labels >>>>> onto that mostly flat screen. When I go to Louisville this summer, I can >>>>> just about guarantee that I can't independently watch TV, unless you guys >>>>> can tell me of an iPhone app that will for sure work with the hotel's TV. >>>>> >>>>> I could go on and on giving examples. Without getting political, both >>>>> blindness organizations have written resolutions for positive and/or >>>>> negative motivators for some of these folks that are busy making our >>>>> lives more and ore inaccessible. We lost the battle of the accessibility >>>>> of curbing in our U.S. cities for blind folks, making our mobility more >>>>> difficult. We can't afford to lose the computer accessibility thing. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Gigi >>>>> >>>>> Eugenia Firth >>>>> gigifi...@sbcglobal.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Lewis Alexander wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> not getting it just yet, figuring out finances, etc so should have it >>>>>> end of may. snowed under at the mo with a machine restoration. a vintage >>>>>> industrial machine I'm completely rebuilding ready for use. so today's >>>>>> been spray work and drying. tomorow's the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> then after that it's assembly work. >>>>>> >>>>>> lew >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Apr 2012, at 13:50, Donna Goodin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Lew, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> congrats on your iPad. they really are cool devices. My husband has >>>>>>> one, and I thought long and hard about getting one too. But eventually >>>>>>> I decided that since I didn't need the larger screen, that the iPhone >>>>>>> could do everything I needed, so it didn't make sense to duplicate >>>>>>> devices. I confess, though, I'm envious. Every once in a while I look >>>>>>> at my husband's iPad and get a sudden craving for coolaide. lol >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Donna >>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Lewis Alexander wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nice one donna, I fully agree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the iPad is a product which can truly change the lives of blind users >>>>>>>> throughout the world. I'm in the process of buying an iPad as it's >>>>>>>> needed for work both in the workshop and on site as a rep for a >>>>>>>> company, so the online catalogue needs to be available and accessible >>>>>>>> to me all the time, the iPad for me feels absolutely amazing, after >>>>>>>> road testing the new model, I've fallen in love with it. I don't need >>>>>>>> a wife, just an iPad lol >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> lew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2012, at 13:39, Donna Goodin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Christine, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm perplexed. How do you see the push to have iPads in classrooms >>>>>>>>> as something that leaves the blind/VI student out? If anything, I >>>>>>>>> see that as something that better enables us to participate, thanks >>>>>>>>> to the fact that Apple has made the iPad a fully accessible device. >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Donna >>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Christine Grassman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With all due respect, Scott, laws which disparately impact certain >>>>>>>>>> groups or classes of people have been flouted through civil >>>>>>>>>> disobedience since the introduction of legal systems, e.g., civil >>>>>>>>>> rights, disability rights, employment rights, etc. The United States >>>>>>>>>> might not exist were it not for disobeying laws. >>>>>>>>>> I am an attorney, and it continues to amaze me how slowly the U.S. >>>>>>>>>> is moving to accommodate disability, and how snail-paced the >>>>>>>>>> societal shift in attitudes toward us has been. and it seems that >>>>>>>>>> whenever a company like Apple makes great strides in accommodating >>>>>>>>>> blindness off the shelf, plenty of other technologies come along and >>>>>>>>>> do not bother to incorporate us into their equation. So many >>>>>>>>>> educational apps, for example, are not accessible, though they could >>>>>>>>>> be, and given the push now to have iPads in classrooms, once again >>>>>>>>>> blind, visually impaired, and otherwise print-disabled students will >>>>>>>>>> be left out. Apple moves us two steps forward, and "progress" (for >>>>>>>>>> others) moves us three steps back. I should be able to turn on a >>>>>>>>>> television, flip a switch, or turn on a transmitter, and get >>>>>>>>>> descriptions. I should be able to access books on the Nook or the >>>>>>>>>> Kindle, not just iBooks. I cannot express, and I am sure others here >>>>>>>>>> agree, the happiness I feel when a new release or best-selling >>>>>>>>>> publication is available on iBooks. >>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, if a book is available on iBooks and on >>>>>>>>>> bookshare.org, I purchase the book. Yet, I have lost quite a lot of >>>>>>>>>> money as a published author -- as soon as my book was published, I >>>>>>>>>> sent a copy to bookshare.org; it was more important to me to have it >>>>>>>>>> available at the same time to the blind and print-disabled. The >>>>>>>>>> Authors Guild apparently does not care about such access, despite >>>>>>>>>> the fact that they would actually get money from us.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would happily go to the movies more and happily purchase >>>>>>>>>> audio-described movies through iTunes if they were available. Even >>>>>>>>>> movies which are released with audio description are not always sold >>>>>>>>>> through movie resellers -- goodness knows I have tried. To date, I >>>>>>>>>> have only located The Incredible Hulk, from 2008, which I purchased >>>>>>>>>> for my son. >>>>>>>>>> Even Apple could do more. It could strengthen its requirements for >>>>>>>>>> apps. It has provided developers with the means to make their apps >>>>>>>>>> VoiceOver accessible, and there are plenty of apps out there which >>>>>>>>>> could be so. Only apps that are visual by their very nature should >>>>>>>>>> be exempted. But, as usual, profit trumps people, despite the fact >>>>>>>>>> that the disabled community rewards those who remember us with our >>>>>>>>>> business. >>>>>>>>>> Frankly, I would prefer to purchase the audio-described movies and >>>>>>>>>> shows I download from the vault, so that I could watch them with >>>>>>>>>> sighted friends and family. I wish I could show a film to a class >>>>>>>>>> and not have to ask my para or a student to tell me what is going >>>>>>>>>> on. The entertainment industry gets plenty of my money. If they want >>>>>>>>>> more, they should remember that I deserve to be able to access their >>>>>>>>>> material independently. OK. Topic over. Those of you who wish to >>>>>>>>>> continue this off-list are welcome; I've appreciated your >>>>>>>>>> correspondence thus far. >>>>>>>>>> Christine >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:13 AM, Scott Howell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am sure commenting on this only adds fuel to the fire, but I did >>>>>>>>>>> want to point out that as I recall the person that is responsible >>>>>>>>>>> for this movie vault thing also runs a legit company. I would find >>>>>>>>>>> it difficult to believe that he has not checked into this because >>>>>>>>>>> no one would want to put their business assets at risk. If there >>>>>>>>>>> truly is an investigation then prove it. I get pretty annoyed when >>>>>>>>>>> people claim something, but cannot or do not provide any reference >>>>>>>>>>> to back those claims. And for the record I do not condone pirating >>>>>>>>>>> of any kind and believe that regardless of accessibility issues >>>>>>>>>>> even blind people must follow the laws. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Christine Grassman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, if the moderator deems this discussion verboten, I will >>>>>>>>>>>> refrain further, but I would feel remiss not to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>> following for consideration: >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. As of several hours ago, there was nothing on the FBI's >>>>>>>>>>>> official web site regarding an investigation, nor were there any >>>>>>>>>>>> press releases or other comparable references to an investigation >>>>>>>>>>>> of the movie vault. A reference would be appreciated; mere >>>>>>>>>>>> speculation or rumor could be deemed libelous. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The problem industries have with illegal file-sharing is loss >>>>>>>>>>>> of revenue. Since, at least in the United States, there is >>>>>>>>>>>> virtually no way to purchase audio-described movies or television >>>>>>>>>>>> shows, the industry is not being cheated of revenue. >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. The files are straight audio, with no ability, for example, to >>>>>>>>>>>> "watch" with sighted peers while having the benefit of the audio >>>>>>>>>>>> description. This is not at all remotely similar to downloading a >>>>>>>>>>>> film for the family to watch. That being said, the vast majority >>>>>>>>>>>> of the sighted community does this with impunity, even though many >>>>>>>>>>>> of the shows and movies they download can be seen for free when >>>>>>>>>>>> they are are shown on television. We, on the other hand, cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> even enjoy full access to these shows when they *are* on >>>>>>>>>>>> television. Either they are not audio-described at all, or it is >>>>>>>>>>>> not easy to turn on the secondary audio channel, or a particular >>>>>>>>>>>> station only carries foreign language broadcasts on the SAC rather >>>>>>>>>>>> than audio description. Comparing access to audio-described movies >>>>>>>>>>>> and shows in mp3 format to the type of file-sharing which goes on >>>>>>>>>>>> 24/7 on hundreds and thousands of sites is a stretch. >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. If the government and/or the involved industries wish to do >>>>>>>>>>>> something about the existence of resources like the movie vault, >>>>>>>>>>>> the former should mandate, and the latter should provide a market >>>>>>>>>>>> from which we can obtain these items. I have been able to watch a >>>>>>>>>>>> non-described movie with others after listening to an mp3 file and >>>>>>>>>>>> tell another blind person what is going on thanks to that previous >>>>>>>>>>>> experience. My two blind children have been able to enjoy fare >>>>>>>>>>>> which their peers enjoyed months or years ago. Until the >>>>>>>>>>>> entertainment industry levels the playing field, I will utilize >>>>>>>>>>>> resources like the movie vault with the same guiltless pleasure I >>>>>>>>>>>> take in bookshare.org (and, by the way, it is possible to download >>>>>>>>>>>> books from bookshare.org which are available commercially.) We >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot use the Kindle as others do. WE cannot use the Nook. We >>>>>>>>>>>> are severely limited in what we can access independently when it >>>>>>>>>>>> comes to entertainment, and we must even still fight for access to >>>>>>>>>>>> education at every level, despite technological advances. Holding >>>>>>>>>>>> us to the same standards as the vast majority of illegal >>>>>>>>>>>> file-sharers is legally, morally, and economically inequitable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Christine >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>>> macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>> macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
