Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!143.0!Donna.Veno
From: Donna.Veno@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Donna Veno)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Re:ham Radio
Message-ID: <13806@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 90 16:18:40 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Donna.Veno@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/143.0 - DARKNESS III, Falls Church VA
Lines: 27
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 10066

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Well in that case, I think that a person with a severe learning 
disability may have considerable difficulty in copying the code, whether 
they are copying it to transfer on to paper, or to interpret it 
verbally.  Having worked with people with specific learning 
disabilities, I feel pr43etty sure about what I am saying.  I, too, am 
trying to keep an open mind on the subject, so I really appreciate your 
comments.  I just think we as responsible bolind people have to be 
careful about what we say when we're giving guidance in matters that may 
result in actual policy changes.  We'd have to look at first, what is 
the FCC trying to accomplish?  Second, who will administer the policy? 
Third, is it even feasible to do anything but make the waiver 
voluntary--therefore those who object need not use it, but for those who 
need it, the waiver would be there.  Fourthly, I would strongly object 
to the waiver if it continues to require medical certification.  Most 
people with disabilities can certify through consumer organizations or 
other community-based organizations, i.e. churches, that they have a 
disability.  This doesn't cost them any money, whereas the medical thing 
is, in my thought, back in the dark ages.  So, thanks for your thoughts, 
those are more of mine.  It's very nice to chat with you.  DV

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!143.0!Donna.Veno
Internet: Donna.Veno@p0.f143.n109.z1.fidonet.org