Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!bridge2!mips!apple!olivea!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!William.Wilson
From: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (William Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: GUIDE DOGS
Message-ID: <14178@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 17 Sep 90 02:58:19 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.0 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA
Lines: 32
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 10407

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

 TB> I question the point of your message about Leader Dogs.  It
 TB> looked to me like a bad statement was made by some from Leader
 TB> about Seeing Eye so you feel it would be correct to
 TB> say something bad about Leader.

Thomas,
    You couldn't be more wrong in your interpretation of my message, for
I was saying just the opposite!  That's exactly why I said to Greg that
he should pay about as much attention to people's statements about
Seeing Eye policy as I did to the claims that Leader Dog gives
preferential treatment to male users!

      In other words, no, I don't go around bad rapping dogs from the
other schools, simply because I never had a dog from one of the other
schools.  I think that Henry's message, along with mine a while back,
shows that our experience at Seeing Eye doesn't support the claim they
give preferential treatment to employed blinks.
     I'm sincerely sorry if you interpreted my message to Greg as a slam
of Leader Dog, as it was, as I said above, an attempt to show how
ridiculous of a thing that would be!
                                                Willie
 

... BlinkTalk, Dr. Deb and Silver in Pittsburgh!

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!William.Wilson
Internet: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org