Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
message news:rem-2007oct01-008@yahoo.com...
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
Look in your particular state's discrimination laws. Every State has a set.
Try looking within the dept of labor first.
Once you know the specifics of your local state law contact the ACLU in your
state.
First make a criminal complaint at the local or state level state's
attorney. Do this first and timely. In this state the time limit for filing
a discrimination complaint is 180 days. A civil case on the federal level
can take two years before the filing deadline is reached.
In most cases the supporting eveidence of a State level legal case
stipulating the act of a Class A Misdomeanor has accured and adjudicated is
good supporting eveidence for the federal legal pleading.
If you are going to be seeking damages the suit them twice, if ya can.
But remember, there are consequences for making false claims and pursuing
losing legal battles. Not saying you are doing any of the last, mind you.
On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> wrote:
>
> > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
who don't use a monitor, (I think you might also not have a clue of
what the OP is talking about).
Well regarding the access issue anyway. While it is true to say that
he / she might have access to a computer, they are most likeley
accessing the web and other items with some kind of alternative
device, such as a Screen Reader or Magnification program. Google them,
you'll get a lot of hits on both.
I use a ScreenReader myself, a long with Windows Magnifier.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
"Relayer"
news:1191326302.710722.50320@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> wrote:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>
LOL! Good call!
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
message news:rem-2007oct01-008@yahoo.com...
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
yeah while you are at it, why not sue the Department of Defense for not
hiring disabled people also.
On Oct 2, 8:59?am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
> > wrote:
>
> > > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> > > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> > > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> > You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
> > TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> > asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>
> Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
> who don't use a monitor, (I think you might also not have a clue of
> what the OP is talking about).
> Well regarding the access issue anyway. While it is true to say that
> he / she might have access to a computer, they are most likeley
> accessing the web and other items with some kind of alternative
> device, such as a Screen Reader or Magnification program. Google them,
> you'll get a lot of hits on both.
> I use a ScreenReader myself, a long with Windows Magnifier.
> --
> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
And that would prevent you from applying for a job on the internet in
which way? You were able to access the post and thi snews group,
therefore you are able to access the directions on how to apply.
Lot's of assumptions here on him using a screen reader or whatever.
And if he had to use a screen reader, it is unlikely he would be hired
for a job working retail, as the ability to see is pretty fundemental
to the position. If he cann't see, it would be like a guy in a
wheelcahir crying discrimmination because the Chicago Cubs wont place
him on the team.
Sorry.
On Oct 2, 8:59?am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
> > wrote:
>
> > > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> > > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> > > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> > You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
> > TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> > asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>
> Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
> who don't use a monitor, (I think you might also not have a clue of
> what the OP is talking about).
> Well regarding the access issue anyway. While it is true to say that
> he / she might have access to a computer, they are most likeley
> accessing the web and other items with some kind of alternative
> device, such as a Screen Reader or Magnification program. Google them,
> you'll get a lot of hits on both.
> I use a ScreenReader myself, a long with Windows Magnifier.
> --
> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
By the way, if you use a screen reader and its useless, how did you
know I used caps? If you knew, then its not useless.
On 2007-10-02, Relayer
> On Oct 2, 8:59?am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> > > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> > > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
[...]
> And that would prevent you from applying for a job on the internet in
> which way? You were able to access the post and thi snews group,
> therefore you are able to access the directions on how to apply.
That doesn't follow. Robert Maas may have an older computer that only
displays text and be using the Lynx browser for example.
If so then he's quite right that their recruitment pages ought to be
accessible from Lynx.
But I don't know if he can sue them. And most employers don't care who
is most in need of a job anyway, just what kind of person they perceive
themselves to be most in need of employing.
"Ben C"
news:slrnfg50r0.5n9.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> On 2007-10-02, Relayer
>> On Oct 2, 8:59?am, Chaddy2222
>> wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
>>> 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> > > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> > > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
> [...]
>> And that would prevent you from applying for a job on the internet in
>> which way? You were able to access the post and thi snews group,
>> therefore you are able to access the directions on how to apply.
>
> That doesn't follow. Robert Maas may have an older computer that only
> displays text and be using the Lynx browser for example.
>
> If so then he's quite right that their recruitment pages ought to be
> accessible from Lynx.
>
So companies should have their pages accessible to all known forms of
computerized access/programming? And who is going to pay the cost of the
extra people needed to do this? That's what is wrong with the country today;
you can't accomodate =everyone=!
> But I don't know if he can sue them. And most employers don't care who
> is most in need of a job anyway, just what kind of person they perceive
> themselves to be most in need of employing.
On Oct 2, 12:52?pm, "Jim"
> "Ben C"
>
> news:slrnfg50r0.5n9.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>
>
>
> > On 2007-10-02, Relayer
> >> On Oct 2, 8:59?am, Chaddy2222
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
> >>> 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>> > > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> >>> > > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> >>> > > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
> > [...]
> >> And that would prevent you from applying for a job on the internet in
> >> which way? You were able to access the post and thi snews group,
> >> therefore you are able to access the directions on how to apply.
>
> > That doesn't follow. Robert Maas may have an older computer that only
> > displays text and be using the Lynx browser for example.
>
> > If so then he's quite right that their recruitment pages ought to be
> > accessible from Lynx.
>
> So companies should have their pages accessible to all known forms of
> computerized access/programming? And who is going to pay the cost of the
> extra people needed to do this? That's what is wrong with the country today;
> you can't accomodate =everyone=!
>
>
>
> > But I don't know if he can sue them. And most employers don't care who
> > is most in need of a job anyway, just what kind of person they perceive
> > themselves to be most in need of employing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The don't, they won't and if someone needed that much specialized
equiptment, they would never, ever be hired for a job in retail. Maybe
is is looking for another type of job at TRU though but in reality, I
think he is looking for someone to sue, rather than someone to work
for.
"GeekBoy"
> yeah while you are at it, why not sue the Department of Defense for
> not hiring disabled people also.
The DoD doesn't need to hire the disabled - it makes its own.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
"Relayer"
news:1191347964.138275.190670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com.. .
> On Oct 2, 12:52?pm, "Jim"
>> "Ben C"
>>
>> news:slrnfg50r0.5n9.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2007-10-02, Relayer
>> >> On Oct 2, 8:59?am, Chaddy2222
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 2, 9:58 pm, Relayer
>> >>> 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
>> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> >>> > > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> >>> > > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> > [...]
>> >> And that would prevent you from applying for a job on the internet in
>> >> which way? You were able to access the post and thi snews group,
>> >> therefore you are able to access the directions on how to apply.
>>
>> > That doesn't follow. Robert Maas may have an older computer that only
>> > displays text and be using the Lynx browser for example.
>>
>> > If so then he's quite right that their recruitment pages ought to be
>> > accessible from Lynx.
>>
>> So companies should have their pages accessible to all known forms of
>> computerized access/programming? And who is going to pay the cost of the
>> extra people needed to do this? That's what is wrong with the country
>> today;
>> you can't accomodate =everyone=!
>>
>>
>>
>> > But I don't know if he can sue them. And most employers don't care who
>> > is most in need of a job anyway, just what kind of person they perceive
>> > themselves to be most in need of employing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The don't, they won't and if someone needed that much specialized
> equiptment, they would never, ever be hired for a job in retail. Maybe
> is is looking for another type of job at TRU though but in reality, I
> think he is looking for someone to sue, rather than someone to work
> for.
>
There are access technology products and programs. Also rules that if the
cost is not out rageously high (and most times equiped and funded by third
parties) then "equal accomidation" does apply.
"Sherm Pendley"
news:m2ir5pwg2g.fsf@dot-app.org...
> "GeekBoy"
>
>> yeah while you are at it, why not sue the Department of Defense for
>> not hiring disabled people also.
>
> The DoD doesn't need to hire the disabled - it makes its own.
>
> sherm--
>
> --
> Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
> Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
lol no shit :-)
Six String Stu wrote:
> "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
> message news:rem-2007oct01-008@yahoo.com...
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
> Look in your particular state's discrimination laws. Every State has a set.
Assuming we're talking about the US, the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) comes into play.
Relayer wrote:
> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> wrote:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment online
is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons with
disabilities.
>
> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's blind
and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to function with a
speech reader. Or it may have features that only work by clicking on
them with a mouse, and the OP may have mobility impairments that
restrict him to functions available through keyboard use.
"Harlan Messinger"
news:5mfv0iFdc27iU1@mid.individual.net...
> Six String Stu wrote:
>> "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
>> message news:rem-2007oct01-008@yahoo.com...
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> Look in your particular state's discrimination laws. Every State has a
>> set.
>
> Assuming we're talking about the US, the federal Americans with
> Disabilities Act (ADA) comes into play.
Every state including the Distric of Columbia and the US teritories have
enacted legislation due to the Federal ADA laws.
The federal ADA laws are what the federal lawsuit (ACLU) will be geared
towards.
But it's best to start at the local level (state level) decision to document
the case. IOW use those state enacted laws to bolster the federal issue.
On Oct 2, 5:31?pm, Harlan Messinger
> Relayer wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> > wrote:
> >> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> >> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> >> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> > You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there is a
> > TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> > asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment online
> is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons with
> disabilities.
>
>
>
> > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>
> You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's blind
> and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to function with a
> speech reader. Or it may have features that only work by clicking on
> them with a mouse, and the OP may have mobility impairments that
> restrict him to functions available through keyboard use.
If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
and apply. And BS if someone says "what if he can't go?" If he can't
go, he can't work there either.
This guy is simply looking to sue someone.
Can't believe you all are falling for this.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mfv6fFbvs0kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Relayer wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
>> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
>> wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>
>> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there
>> is a
>> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
>> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment
> online is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons
> with disabilities.
>
>>
>> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
>> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
>> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>
> You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's
> blind and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to
> function with a speech reader. Or it may have features that only
> work by clicking on them with a mouse, and the OP may have mobility
> impairments that restrict him to functions available through
> keyboard use.
So you're saying TRU should stop taking applications on line because
1% of the disabled people that may or may not apply on line can't do
so? I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause of
no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to file a
lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired. I'll be happy to
testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be filed in my area.
On Oct 2, 6:04?pm, "DrFeelgoodWA"
> "Harlan Messinger"
> messagenews:5mfv6fFbvs0kU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Relayer wrote:
> >> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
> >>http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> >> wrote:
> >>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> >>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> >>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> >> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there
> >> is a
> >> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> >> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>
> > The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment
> > online is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons
> > with disabilities.
>
> >> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> >> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> >> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>
> > You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's
> > blind and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to
> > function with a speech reader. Or it may have features that only
> > work by clicking on them with a mouse, and the OP may have mobility
> > impairments that restrict him to functions available through
> > keyboard use.
>
> So you're saying TRU should stop taking applications on line because
> 1% of the disabled people that may or may not apply on line can't do
> so? I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
> Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
> real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
> Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause of
> no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to file a
> lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired. I'll be happy to
> testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be filed in my area.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bingo Mike.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mfv6fFbvs0kU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Relayer wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
>>> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
>>> wrote:
>>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there
>>> is a
>>> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
>>> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>> The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment
>> online is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons
>> with disabilities.
>>
>>> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
>>> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
>>> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>> You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's
>> blind and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to
>> function with a speech reader. Or it may have features that only
>> work by clicking on them with a mouse, and the OP may have mobility
>> impairments that restrict him to functions available through
>> keyboard use.
>
> So you're saying TRU should stop taking applications on line because
> 1% of the disabled people that may or may not apply on line can't do
> so?
They should exert the effort to make their website accessible to the
disabled. It isn't hard. It's much more a matter of knowing what *not*
to do (using color distinctions as the sole means of communicating
substantive information; providing access to functions only through an
image with a Javascript onclick handler so that they can't be accessed
via the keyboard; using absolute font sizes) than of knowing what to do
(provide ALT text to communicate the same information conveyed by
images). Many websites are accessible.
> I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
> Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
> real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
Whereas non-disabled people don't have to haul all the way to the
library to be able to fill out a form. That's the point.
> Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause of
> no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to file a
> lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired.
You think the disabled don't have jobs? How would you know what job he
would have applied for and whether he'd be able to do it? It's easy to
scoff when you allow yourself to imagine what the situation "probably"
is and then assume that it really is that way.
> I'll be happy to
> testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be filed in my area.
What kind of testimony do you imagine yourself to have to offer that
would be of value in their case? From your off-the-cuff reaction, it's
evident that you have little background on the subject.
Relayer wrote:
> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
> and apply.
You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
making their website accessible.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
On Oct 3, 9:40?am, Harlan Messinger
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> > "Harlan Messinger"
> > messagenews:5mfv6fFbvs0kU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Relayer wrote:
> >>> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> >>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> >>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
> >>> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there
> >>> is a
> >>> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
> >>> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
> >> The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment
> >> online is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons
> >> with disabilities.
>
> >>> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> >>> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> >>> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
> >> You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's
> >> blind and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to
> >> function with a speech reader. Or it may have features that only
> >> work by clicking on them with a mouse, and the OP may have mobility
> >> impairments that restrict him to functions available through
> >> keyboard use.
>
> > So you're saying TRU should stop taking applications on line because
> > 1% of the disabled people that may or may not apply on line can't do
> > so?
>
> They should exert the effort to make their website accessible to the
> disabled. It isn't hard. It's much more a matter of knowing what *not*
> to do (using color distinctions as the sole means of communicating
> substantive information; providing access to functions only through an
> image with a Javascript onclick handler so that they can't be accessed
> via the keyboard; using absolute font sizes) than of knowing what to do
> (provide ALT text to communicate the same information conveyed by
> images). Many websites are accessible.
>
> > I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
> > Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
> > real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
>
> Whereas non-disabled people don't have to haul all the way to the
> library to be able to fill out a form. That's the point.
>
> > Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause of
> > no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to file a
> > lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired.
>
> You think the disabled don't have jobs? How would you know what job he
> would have applied for and whether he'd be able to do it? It's easy to
> scoff when you allow yourself to imagine what the situation "probably"
> is and then assume that it really is that way.
>
> > I'll be happy to
> > testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be filed in my area.
>
> What kind of testimony do you imagine yourself to have to offer that
> would be of value in their case? From your off-the-cuff reaction, it's
> evident that you have little background on the subject.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's just assume for a minute this is a retail job (any corporate job
would not be applied for on-line if they expect to get it).
What job in a retail toy store would a blind person be remotely
qualified for?
Come on..this is bullshit.
On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
> Relayer wrote:
> > If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
> > and apply.
>
> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
> making their website accessible.
Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
can he work there doorknob?
It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
someone who is blind nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
as of yet to do so.
In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
which is a WHOLE different animal.
And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mho2jFdf75iU2@mid.individual.net...
> Relayer wrote:
>> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R
>> Us
>> and apply.
>
> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet
> or about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us
> from making their website accessible.
The TRU website is accessible.. They are not required to make it so
morons understand it.
Why are you insisting the OP is blind? Are you a mind reader? I ask
because his post made no such claim. Or perhaps you think all low
income disabled people are blind? BZZZZZ Wrong on both counts.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhnveFdf75iU1@mid.individual.net...
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger"
>> message news:5mfv6fFbvs0kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Relayer wrote:
>>>> On Oct 1, 8:40?pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>>> You can also apply at the store itself. I know this because there
>>>> is a
>>>> TRU down the street and they have one of those street side signs
>>>> asking people to apply on-line or in the store.
>>> The theory is that if the convenience of applying for employment
>>> online is provided, it should be accessible to interested persons
>>> with disabilities.
>>>
>>>> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so
>>>> YOU
>>>> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
>>>> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>>> You don't know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's
>>> blind and the Toys R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to
>>> function with a speech reader. Or it may have features that only
>>> work by clicking on them with a mouse, and the OP may have
>>> mobility impairments that restrict him to functions available
>>> through keyboard use.
>>
>> So you're saying TRU should stop taking applications on line
>> because 1% of the disabled people that may or may not apply on line
>> can't do so?
>
> They should exert the effort to make their website accessible to the
> disabled. It isn't hard. It's much more a matter of knowing what
> *not* to do (using color distinctions as the sole means of
> communicating substantive information; providing access to functions
> only through an image with a Javascript onclick handler so that they
> can't be accessed via the keyboard; using absolute font sizes) than
> of knowing what to do (provide ALT text to communicate the same
> information conveyed by images). Many websites are accessible.
Hey asshole, I'm disabled, low income and have no problem accessing
the TRU website. They are not required nor should they be required to
make their web site accessable to lawsuit happy jackasses with zero
chance of employment by them or any other business.
>
>> I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
>> Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
>> real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
>
> Whereas non-disabled people don't have to haul all the way to the
> library to be able to fill out a form. That's the point.
No it's not the point. The point is some jackass that never intends to
work a day the rest of his life wants to collect large sums of cash
for not working because he is to stupid to fill out an online job
application.
>
>> Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause
>> of no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to
>> file a lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired.
>
> You think the disabled don't have jobs? How would you know what job
> he would have applied for and whether he'd be able to do it? It's
> easy to scoff when you allow yourself to imagine what the situation
> "probably" is and then assume that it really is that way.
It's easy to say he is capable and willing to do any job when you
don't know him or his situation at all?
FYI TRU is a store that actively seeks and employes disabled people.
>
>> I'll be happy to testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be
>> filed in my area.
>
> What kind of testimony do you imagine yourself to have to offer that
> would be of value in their case? From your off-the-cuff reaction,
> it's evident that you have little background on the subject.
For one; Being low income disabled I could testify how easy it was
for me to access their website job application.
And two; I could testify how my local TRU stores actively employ
disabled people.
Being disabled myself I'm sure any jury would eat up my testimony.
Relayer wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Relayer wrote:
>>> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
>>> and apply.
>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>> making their website accessible.
>
> Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
> can he work there doorknob?
Who said he can't get there?
> It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
> difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
> someone who is blind
Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated to
hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable accommodation.
> nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
> who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
> accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
> as of yet to do so.
> In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
> which is a WHOLE different animal.
Employment and public accommodation are covered by the same act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, so it isn't a *whole* different animal.
If not making their website accessible to the shopping public is found
to be an ADA violation, it's hard to imagine that failure to make their
online job application accessible wouldn't be.
> And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case.
How do you figure?
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mho2jFdf75iU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Relayer wrote:
>>> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R
>>> Us
>>> and apply.
>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet
>> or about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us
>> from making their website accessible.
>
> The TRU website is accessible.. They are not required to make it so
> morons understand it.
Is it accessible? The basis for this discussion is the OP's claim that
it isn't. If he's wrong, then he's wrong.
>
> Why are you insisting the OP is blind?
I never insisted he was blind. In fact, I wrote to Relayer, "You don't
know what the OP's disability is. It may be that he's blind and the Toys
R Us website isn't hasn't been designed to function with a speech
reader. Or it may have features that only work by clicking on them with
a mouse, and the OP may have mobility impairments that restrict him to
functions available through keyboard use." In response to me, *Relayer*
wrote "If he can't see the screen ...", and I responded based on that
hypothesis.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
What does blind people shopping from target.com got to do with some
jackass wanting to sue Toys R Us for not making their website job
application understandable to idiots that have IQ's in the sub human
range?
As pointed out several times already. The OP never mentioned what his
disability is. You on the other hand, seem to suffer from terminal
stupidity.
Relayer wrote:
> Let's just assume for a minute this is a retail job (any corporate job
> would not be applied for on-line if they expect to get it).
That's a bizarre dictum. If a company provides an on-line application
for corporate jobs, then obviously they expect people to use it to
apply, and they anticipate hiring some of those people. So why shouldn't
people us it?
> What job in a retail toy store would a blind person be remotely
> qualified for?
Passing on to you the objection that DrFeelgoodWA tagged me with, who
said he was blind?
> Come on..this is bullshit.
What do you think is so terrible about asking a company to make its
website accessible?
On Oct 1, 9:40 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
It is also inaccessible to anyone with out access to the Web!!!
DAMN THEM!!! DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!!!
Where the heck is a lawyer when you need one?
On Oct 2, 12:44 am, "Six String Stu"
> > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
> Look in your particular state's discrimination laws. Every State has a set.
> Try looking within the dept of labor first.
> Once you know the specifics of your local state law contact the ACLU in your
> state.
Yea, lets clog up the courts some more bullshit lawsuits. Maybe we
should sue because they don't have pictograms for people that are
illiterate... Hey what about suing them becasue they are forcing you
to apply to get a job? How about syuing them because they would want
you to work after they hired you...
The ACLU will sue for any reason at all except if you are a white
heterosexual middle class male in America... Then they just fucking
you. (And probably sue you if it didn't feel good)
There... I feel better now... (so sue me)
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
Target wins. The Lawsuit happy ACLU lawyers don't stand a chance. Your
lawsuit is about a retail chain making their shopping website
accessible for blind potential customers. Seeing as no law requires
them to even run a website they can not be required to make their
website available to everyone. If they cave in to the blind lobby they
lose to the low income. Next lawsuit would be to make Target hand out
internet ready computers with paid internet service to any disabled
person that says they can't afford a computer.
In the meantime prices rise at all target stores to cover stupid
nuisance lawsuit cost.
Do you realize how much higher inflation is because of the ACLU and
their lawsuit happy ways? I do every time I need to buy something
retail or wholesale. Do you know who gets the lions share of the money
paid out in these ACLU lawsuits? It's the damn ACLU lawyers driving
around in their BMW's paid for by everyone that buys anything anywhere
anytime in this country.
Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited from
an ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
On Oct 2, 9:59 am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
> Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
> who don't use a monitor,...
How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
For the record, I just ran most of the way through the on-line
application for hourly store employees and observed just one real
barrier that would take about a minute to fix, and one nuisance.
I accomplished the entire thing by keyboard. All information is
communicated in text. There is no flashing, no scrolling or limited-time
display. Color is not used to convey information.
The issues I did find are:
1. The font sizes are specified pixels, and besides that the text is
tiny. The sizes are declared in one stylesheet, and it should be revised
to express sizes as a percentage of the user's default font size.
2. At some point, on hitting an Exit button, there was a pop-up window
with text and buttons that weren't directly in the tab key flow. I think
that most users won't ever even see this popup; if they do, a blind
person may not know it's there, and a person using a keyboard might have
to tab a lot to reach the popup's buttons. If haven't investigated in
detail so I don't know how big a problem this is.
So that's it. One problem that would be extremely easy to fix, and one
possible problem that could be worked out differently. One might wonder
why Toys R Us, if someone were to put them on notice about this,
wouldn't make this simple effort rather than be exposed even to
complaints, let alone legal action.
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger"
>> message news:5mho2jFdf75iU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Relayer wrote:
>>>> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
>>>> and apply.
>>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>>> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>>> making their website accessible.
>>
>> The TRU website is accessible.. They are not required to make it so
>> morons understand it.
>
> Is it accessible? The basis for this discussion is the OP's claim that
> it isn't. If he's wrong, then he's wrong.
Update: See my direct response to the OP.
On Oct 2, 12:49 pm, Relayer
> Lot's of assumptions here on him using a screen reader or whatever.
> And if he had to use a screen reader, it is unlikely he would be hired
> for a job working retail, as the ability to see is pretty fundemental
> to the position. If he cann't see, it would be like a guy in a
> wheelcahir crying discrimmination because the Chicago Cubs wont place
> him on the team.
No YOU are missing the point. The rest of the world must bend over
backwards and lower our lifestyle so we can not do anything that a
disabled person can't do.
So it does not matter if 99% of the world can see it just fine. The
needs of the "few" is far more important then the needs of the many...
On Oct 2, 1:44 pm, Ben C
> That doesn't follow. Robert Maas may have an older computer that only
> displays text and be using the Lynx browser for example.
Sucks to be Robert. I want to fly everywhere in a private jet but I
can't afford one so should I be able to sue Lear?
> If so then he's quite right that their recruitment pages ought to be
> accessible from Lynx.
Why? Should Lear make their plains affordable to me? Should we sue
makers of big screen TVs because a vision impaired person can not see
the screen of his 25" model? Should they be forced to make the 60"
model affordable to me?
The whole FORCE something for the disabled (or poor, or whatever) is
bullshit and socialistic.
"Relayer"
Maybe
> is is looking for another type of job at TRU though but in reality, I
> think he is looking for someone to sue, rather than someone to work
> for.
>
"Yeah, probly!"- Homer Simpson
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
Please explain anything the Target lawsuit has in common with this
idiot wanting to line his pockets at the expense of people wanting to
buy toys for their children or themselves?
The target lawsuit is about blind people shopping on line when there
is no law requiring Target to even have internet shopping for anyone.
How high do you want retail prices to go? Retail lawsuits cause retail
inflation and line the pockets of wealthy lawyers.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhnveFdf75iU1@mid.individual.net...
>> They should exert the effort to make their website accessible to the
>> disabled. It isn't hard. It's much more a matter of knowing what
>> *not* to do (using color distinctions as the sole means of
>> communicating substantive information; providing access to functions
>> only through an image with a Javascript onclick handler so that they
>> can't be accessed via the keyboard; using absolute font sizes) than
>> of knowing what to do (provide ALT text to communicate the same
>> information conveyed by images). Many websites are accessible.
>
> Hey asshole, I'm disabled, low income and have no problem accessing
> the TRU website.
Then it's interesting that you think proposing that facilities make
simple changes to promote accessibility makes somebody an asshole. If I
held a door open for you, would you punch me in the nose?
> They are not required nor should they be required to
> make their web site accessable to lawsuit happy jackasses with zero
> chance of employment by them or any other business.
Evidently the law may require this, and the courts will determine it, so
based on what are you declaring in such an absolute manner that they
aren't so required?
>
>
>>> I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
>>> Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
>>> real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
>> Whereas non-disabled people don't have to haul all the way to the
>> library to be able to fill out a form. That's the point.
>
> No it's not the point. The point is some jackass that never intends to
> work a day the rest of his life wants to collect large sums of cash
> for not working because he is to stupid to fill out an online job
> application.
Weren't you the one accusing *me* of being psychic? You aren't arguing
with the OP. You're arguing with a straw man you've set up in your mind.
>
>
>>> Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause
>>> of no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to
>>> file a lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired.
>> You think the disabled don't have jobs? How would you know what job
>> he would have applied for and whether he'd be able to do it? It's
>> easy to scoff when you allow yourself to imagine what the situation
>> "probably" is and then assume that it really is that way.
>
> It's easy to say he is capable and willing to do any job when you
> don't know him or his situation at all?
No, I'm saying that you don't know that he *can't*. Do you understand
the distinction?
> FYI TRU is a store that actively seeks and employes disabled people.
Good to know.
>
>>> I'll be happy to testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be
>>> filed in my area.
>> What kind of testimony do you imagine yourself to have to offer that
>> would be of value in their case? From your off-the-cuff reaction,
>> it's evident that you have little background on the subject.
>
> For one; Being low income disabled I could testify how easy it was
> for me to access their website job application.
That's different. Your implication was that you were going to testify on
how it didn't matter that the application *wasn't* accessible, which was
the issue being discussed at the time. As I've already indicated in
other messages, I agree with you that the site is *close* to accessible.
It's keyboard accessible, and it's even more accessible to the fully
blind, who will use a screen reader, than it is to those needing the
text to be enlarged.
>
> And two; I could testify how my local TRU stores actively employ
> disabled people.
That would serve no purpose. If discrimination is found in one practice,
it doesn't save the company that it doesn't have to discriminate in
other practices.
> Being disabled myself I'm sure any jury would eat up my testimony.
Does it occur to you that there would be disabled people testifying on
the other side.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited from
> an ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
the press
On Oct 3, 10:42 am, Harlan Messinger
> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
> making their website accessible.
What is the incentive for them to do that? Other than they will get
sued if they don't.
On Oct 3, 11:10 am, Relayer
> And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
> lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.
and the people said AMEN
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>
>
> What does blind people shopping from target.com got to do with some
> jackass wanting to sue Toys R Us for not making their website job
> application understandable to idiots that have IQ's in the sub human
> range?
>
> As pointed out several times already. The OP never mentioned what his
> disability is.
Right. But there isn't a separate law for each disability.
> You on the other hand, seem to suffer from terminal
> stupidity.
Because I understand the issues I'm talking about?
Travis Newbury wrote:
> No YOU are missing the point. The rest of the world must bend over
woof
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>
>
> Target wins. The Lawsuit happy ACLU lawyers don't stand a chance. Your
> lawsuit is about a retail chain making their shopping website
> accessible for blind potential customers. Seeing as no law requires
> them to even run a website they can not be required to make their
> website available to everyone.
You evidently know little about the law in general and disability law in
particular. It doesn't work this way.
> If they cave in to the blind lobby they
> lose to the low income. Next lawsuit would be to make Target hand out
> internet ready computers with paid internet service to any disabled
> person that says they can't afford a computer.
Poverty isn't covered by disability law, so this is a non sequitur. Are
you actually thinking these things out, or do you just like to rant?
> In the meantime prices rise at all target stores to cover stupid
> nuisance lawsuit cost.
Does it occur to you that it's a company's own fault if they lose
expensive lawsuits because they balk at spending a *little* bit of money
to achieve compliance in the first place? This outcome is completely
avoidable.
> Do you realize how much higher inflation is because of the ACLU and
> their lawsuit happy ways?
I think you have a distorted sense of the numbers involved.
> I do every time I need to buy something
> retail or wholesale. Do you know who gets the lions share of the money
> paid out in these ACLU lawsuits? It's the damn ACLU lawyers driving
> around in their BMW's paid for by everyone that buys anything anywhere
> anytime in this country.
So all of this is really about your bitterness about the ACLU, is it?
>
> Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited from
> an ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
>
>
On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated to
> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable accommodation.
So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
horribly disfigured...
Can she sue me because I did not hire her? Discrimination because she
is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face? Do I want some
disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they walk
into my restaurant?
Hell no.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>
>
> Please explain anything the Target lawsuit has in common with this
> idiot wanting to line his pockets at the expense of people wanting to
> buy toys for their children or themselves?
>
> The target lawsuit is about blind people shopping on line when there
> is no law requiring Target to even have internet shopping for anyone.
The law requires that if a facility *is* offered, then it be offered on
a nondiscriminatory basis.
Think about your logic for a moment. What if Target said, "We aren't
legally required to have pizza counters in our stores for anyone!"
(which is true) "So we certainly have the right to have the right to
have them only for white customers."
"Relayer"
> What job in a retail toy store would a blind person be remotely
> qualified for?
>
> Come on..this is bullshit.
>
That's why the rest of us are over here in the corner throwing a
plonking party!!!
"Travis Newbury"
news:1191428134.644241.104190@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 2, 12:44 am, "Six String Stu"
>> > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> Look in your particular state's discrimination laws. Every State has a
>> set.
>> Try looking within the dept of labor first.
>> Once you know the specifics of your local state law contact the ACLU in
>> your
>> state.
>
> Yea, lets clog up the courts some more bullshit lawsuits.
Yeah, I'm a Scot so I've decided I only want to communicate in Scottish;
the world (well, except isolated parts of Scotland!) is discriminating
against me!!!! ROTFLMSAO!!!!
Maybe we
> should sue because they don't have pictograms for people that are
> illiterate... Hey what about suing them becasue they are forcing you
> to apply to get a job? How about syuing them because they would want
> you to work after they hired you...
>
> The ACLU will sue for any reason at all except if you are a white
> heterosexual middle class male in America... Then they just fucking
> you. (And probably sue you if it didn't feel good)
>
> There... I feel better now... (so sue me)
>
On 2007-10-03, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 2, 1:44 pm, Ben C
>> That doesn't follow. Robert Maas may have an older computer that only
>> displays text and be using the Lynx browser for example.
>
> Sucks to be Robert. I want to fly everywhere in a private jet but I
> can't afford one so should I be able to sue Lear?
>
>> If so then he's quite right that their recruitment pages ought to be
>> accessible from Lynx.
>
> Why?
Just because it's good web-design.
> Should Lear make their plains affordable to me? Should we sue
> makers of big screen TVs because a vision impaired person can not see
> the screen of his 25" model? Should they be forced to make the 60"
> model affordable to me?
>
> The whole FORCE something for the disabled (or poor, or whatever) is
> bullshit and socialistic.
I didn't say that, but you're wrong anyway. It's socialist, but not
bullshit.
The poor and disabled fortunately still get to vote so it's quite
appropriate for the government they elect to force things in their
favour now and again.
The system relies on a balance between the blind hand of the market and
the blind foot of the state.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhujfFdn2n9U2@mid.individual.net...
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger"
>> message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>>
>>
>> What does blind people shopping from target.com got to do with some
>> jackass wanting to sue Toys R Us for not making their website job
>> application understandable to idiots that have IQ's in the sub
>> human range?
>>
>> As pointed out several times already. The OP never mentioned what
>> his disability is.
>
> Right. But there isn't a separate law for each disability.
>
>> You on the other hand, seem to suffer from terminal stupidity.
>
> Because I understand the issues I'm talking about?
>
>
Because you refuse to even try to understand. You are stuck on blind
shoppers while the OP is hunting lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit. Job
applications on one retail website have zero to do with shopping from
a different retail website.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhujfFdn2n9U2@mid.individual.net...
>> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>>> You on the other hand, seem to suffer from terminal stupidity.
>> Because I understand the issues I'm talking about?
>
> Because you refuse to even try to understand. You are stuck on blind
> shoppers while the OP is hunting lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit. Job
> applications on one retail website have zero to do with shopping from
> a different retail website.
Sorry, you're the one who isn't understanding. I already explained what,
in legal terms, one has to do with the other. You're more interested in
expressing your anger and your view on How Things Should Work than in
understanding the details about how this kind of thing *does* work.
"DrFeelgoodWA"
news:aYKdnUXTBeRTXZ7anZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>
>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>
>
> Target wins. The Lawsuit happy ACLU lawyers don't stand a chance. Your
> lawsuit is about a retail chain making their shopping website
> accessible for blind potential customers. Seeing as no law requires
> them to even run a website they can not be required to make their
> website available to everyone.
Logic not your strong point, eh? Seeing as no law requires that I own a
car, then I guess I can't be required to make sure that any car that I do
own passes a safety inspection. It may well be that Target has no
obligation is make its website accessible for the blind. But it won't be
because no law requires a website in the first place.
> If they cave in to the blind lobby they
> lose to the low income. Next lawsuit would be to make Target hand out
> internet ready computers with paid internet service to any disabled
> person that says they can't afford a computer.
Perhaps you could explain the reasoning behind this assertion. Cites to
statute or case law would be nice.
> In the meantime prices rise at all target stores to cover stupid
> nuisance lawsuit cost.
Could we have some evidence for this?
> Do you realize how much higher inflation is because of the ACLU and
> their lawsuit happy ways?
Do you have some evidence for this claim? Perhaps the correlation
between the number of ACLU lawsuits and the inflation rate?
> I do every time I need to buy something retail or wholesale.
But you appear to be an ignoramus. Could we have something besides your
word?
> Do you know who gets the lions share of the money
> paid out in these ACLU lawsuits? It's the damn ACLU lawyers driving
> around in their BMW's paid for by everyone that buys anything anywhere
> anytime in this country.
Many ACLU lawsuits involving violations of civil rights don't claim
damages at all. Many ACLU lawsuits are handled pro bono.
Can you cite a source for the number of BMW's driven by ACLU lawyers?
Some ACLU lawyers have separate private practices. Is it OK for them to
buy BMWs with money they recieve from their private practice?
> Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited from
> an ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
The plaintiffs in Dover, PA. And by extension, me. Also you.
"Travis Newbury"
news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated to
>> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
>> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable accommodation.
>
> So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
> experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
> job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
> horribly disfigured...
>
> Can she sue me because I did not hire her?
Yup.
Discrimination because she
> is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
Yup.
Do I want some
> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they walk
> into my restaurant?
>
> Hell no.
>
Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhut4Fdbco9U1@mid.individual.net...
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger"
>> message news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>>
>>
>> Target wins. The Lawsuit happy ACLU lawyers don't stand a chance.
>> Your lawsuit is about a retail chain making their shopping website
>> accessible for blind potential customers. Seeing as no law requires
>> them to even run a website they can not be required to make their
>> website available to everyone.
>
> You evidently know little about the law in general and disability
> law in particular. It doesn't work this way.
>
>> If they cave in to the blind lobby they lose to the low income.
>> Next lawsuit would be to make Target hand out internet ready
>> computers with paid internet service to any disabled person that
>> says they can't afford a computer.
>
> Poverty isn't covered by disability law, so this is a non sequitur.
> Are you actually thinking these things out, or do you just like to
> rant?
>
>> In the meantime prices rise at all target stores to cover stupid
>> nuisance lawsuit cost.
>
> Does it occur to you that it's a company's own fault if they lose
> expensive lawsuits because they balk at spending a *little* bit of
> money to achieve compliance in the first place? This outcome is
> completely avoidable.
>
>> Do you realize how much higher inflation is because of the ACLU and
>> their lawsuit happy ways?
>
> I think you have a distorted sense of the numbers involved.
Not at all. Look at retail crime lawsuits statistics some time and
it's effect on prices. Lawsuits raise prices more than crime.
>
>> I do every time I need to buy something retail or wholesale. Do you
>> know who gets the lions share of the money paid out in these ACLU
>> lawsuits? It's the damn ACLU lawyers driving around in their BMW's
>> paid for by everyone that buys anything anywhere anytime in this
>> country.
>
> So all of this is really about your bitterness about the ACLU, is
> it?
Not at all. It's just they are the largest offender of the court
system. Why do you insits all disabled people are blind? A bit myopic
of you I'd say.
>
>>
>> Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited
>> from an ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
You are clearly a non disabled troll. FYI: Disability and poverty do
go hand in hand more often than not.
Travis Newbury
news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated to
>> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
>> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable accommodation.
>
> So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
> experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
> job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
> horribly disfigured...
>
> Can she sue me because I did not hire her? Discrimination because she
> is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
I doubt this qualified as a handicap under the ADA. Do you have some
evidence that it does?
> Do I want some
> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they walk
> into my restaurant?
>
> Hell no.
>
>
"Jim"
news:kQPMi.172$R95.112@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Travis Newbury"
> news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
>>
>>> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are
>>> obligated to
>>> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply
>>> to
>>> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable
>>> accommodation.
>>
>> So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
>> experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for
>> the
>> job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and
>> is
>> horribly disfigured...
>>
>> Can she sue me because I did not hire her?
>
> Yup.
>
>
> Discrimination because she
>> is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
>
> Yup.
>
> Do I want some
>> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they
>> walk
>> into my restaurant?
>>
>> Hell no.
>>
> Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
What if slug ugly decides she wants to be a model?
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mhvn3Fdlk5tU1@mid.individual.net...
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger"
>> message news:5mhujfFdn2n9U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>
>>>> You on the other hand, seem to suffer from terminal stupidity.
>>> Because I understand the issues I'm talking about?
>>
>> Because you refuse to even try to understand. You are stuck on
>> blind shoppers while the OP is hunting lawyers for a frivolous
>> lawsuit. Job applications on one retail website have zero to do
>> with shopping from a different retail website.
>
> Sorry, you're the one who isn't understanding. I already explained
> what, in legal terms, one has to do with the other. You're more
> interested in expressing your anger and your view on How Things
> Should Work than in understanding the details about how this kind of
> thing *does* work.
What is your bar number? Unless you are a practicing lawyer you are
just giving your slanted opinion of what you think the law says.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhvn3Fdlk5tU1@mid.individual.net...
>> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>>> "Harlan Messinger"
>>> message news:5mhujfFdn2n9U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>>>>> You on the other hand, seem to suffer from terminal stupidity.
>>>> Because I understand the issues I'm talking about?
>>> Because you refuse to even try to understand. You are stuck on
>>> blind shoppers while the OP is hunting lawyers for a frivolous
>>> lawsuit. Job applications on one retail website have zero to do
>>> with shopping from a different retail website.
>> Sorry, you're the one who isn't understanding. I already explained
>> what, in legal terms, one has to do with the other. You're more
>> interested in expressing your anger and your view on How Things
>> Should Work than in understanding the details about how this kind of
>> thing *does* work.
>
>
> What is your bar number? Unless you are a practicing lawyer you are
> just giving your slanted opinion of what you think the law says.
>
That's like saying that unless I'm a licensed electrician I don't know
the difference between the hot, neutral, and ground wires.
"Relayer"
news:1191424256.902076.108650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Relayer wrote:
>> > If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
>> > and apply.
>>
>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>> making their website accessible.
>
> Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
> can he work there doorknob?
>
> It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
> difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
> someone who is blind nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
> who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
> accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
> as of yet to do so.
Then you had better read up on the "equal accomidation" laws before starting
up any business.
Places of business that serve the public DO have to make thier services
accessible to the disabled. It's the law.
>
> In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
> which is a WHOLE different animal.
>
> And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
> lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.
>
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mhut4Fdbco9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> I think you have a distorted sense of the numbers involved.
>
> Not at all. Look at retail crime lawsuits statistics some time and
> it's effect on prices. Lawsuits raise prices more than crime.
Do you have any to cite?
>>> I do every time I need to buy something retail or wholesale. Do you
>>> know who gets the lions share of the money paid out in these ACLU
>>> lawsuits? It's the damn ACLU lawyers driving around in their BMW's
>>> paid for by everyone that buys anything anywhere anytime in this
>>> country.
>> So all of this is really about your bitterness about the ACLU, is
>> it?
>
> Not at all. It's just they are the largest offender of the court
> system. Why do you insits all disabled people are blind? A bit myopic
> of you I'd say.
Wow. This is funny. You keep insisting that I said this, no matter how
many times I point out that I never said this and no matter how many
times I've already discussed disabilities other than blindness. Are you
trying to impress me with how you're the kind of person who, once he
gets an idea into his head, won't change his mind for any reason whatsoever?
>
>>> Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited
>>> from an ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
>
> You are clearly a non disabled troll. FYI: Disability and poverty do
> go hand in hand more often than not.
"A often goes hand in with B" does not imply "B is a form of A". Poverty
is not a disability covered by disability law.
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated to
>> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
>> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable accommodation.
>
> So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
> experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
> job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
> horribly disfigured...
>
> Can she sue me because I did not hire her? Discrimination because she
> is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
I believe US disability law expresses disability in terms of one's
ability or inability, whether real or perceived, to perform functions.
Since facial disfiguration doesn't affect one's abilities I'm not *sure*
that disability law would apply. Other non-discrimination laws may
apply: for example, the District of Columbia's non-discrimination law
covers personal appearance.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Jim"
> news:kQPMi.172$R95.112@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "Travis Newbury"
>> news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Do I want some
>>> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they
>>> walk
>>> into my restaurant?
>>>
>>> Hell no.
>>>
>> Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
>
> What if slug ugly decides she wants to be a model?
Assuming that the discrimination in question would *normally* be
forbidden, the employer may be exempt where the need for an attractive
person can be demonstrated to be a "bona-fide occupational
qualification" (BFOQ). For example, a US company was sued by a
helicopter pilot who was rejected for a job flying a helicopter around a
construction site in Mecca for purposes of surveying the work being
done. The pilot was rejected on the grounds that he wasn't a Muslim. But
the company satisfied the court that since non-Muslims aren't permitted
in Mecca and therefore a non-Muslim pilot would be arrested and executed
upon setting foot in Mecca, which would make it impractical for the
company to maintain the pilot as an employee, being a Muslim was a BFOQ
for this job.
"Harlan Messinger"
news:5mhut4Fdbco9U1@mid.individual.net...
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger"
>> news:5mhoamFdjesuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>>
>>
>> Target wins. The Lawsuit happy ACLU lawyers don't stand a chance. Your
>> lawsuit is about a retail chain making their shopping website accessible
>> for blind potential customers. Seeing as no law requires them to even run
>> a website they can not be required to make their website available to
>> everyone.
>
> You evidently know little about the law in general and disability law in
> particular. It doesn't work this way.
>
>> If they cave in to the blind lobby they lose to the low income. Next
>> lawsuit would be to make Target hand out internet ready computers with
>> paid internet service to any disabled person that says they can't afford
>> a computer.
>
> Poverty isn't covered by disability law, so this is a non sequitur. Are
> you actually thinking these things out, or do you just like to rant?
Mike Gibson just likes to rant. KF him and stop arguing with the ignorant.
>
>> In the meantime prices rise at all target stores to cover stupid nuisance
>> lawsuit cost.
>
> Does it occur to you that it's a company's own fault if they lose
> expensive lawsuits because they balk at spending a *little* bit of money
> to achieve compliance in the first place? This outcome is completely
> avoidable.
>
>> Do you realize how much higher inflation is because of the ACLU and their
>> lawsuit happy ways?
>
> I think you have a distorted sense of the numbers involved.
>
>> I do every time I need to buy something retail or wholesale. Do you know
>> who gets the lions share of the money paid out in these ACLU lawsuits?
>> It's the damn ACLU lawyers driving around in their BMW's paid for by
>> everyone that buys anything anywhere anytime in this country.
>
> So all of this is really about your bitterness about the ACLU, is it?
It's not just the ACLU, it's everything about life that he is pissed with.
It shows in his interactions within this NG. Simple first year Psych stuff.
:)
>
>>
>> Does anyone in here personally know anyone who actually benefited from an
>> ACLU lawsuit besides ACLU lawyers?
On Oct 3, 11:43?am, "Jim"
> "Relayer"
> > qualified for?
>
> > Come on..this is bullshit.
>
> That's why the rest of us are over here in the corner throwing a
> plonking party!!!
Well, Harlan said something to the effect that they have to hire under
the same criteria as a normal person if reasonable accomidations can
be made.
Retail sales people at Toys R Us HAVE to be able to see. Someone asks
a price of something or "can you help me find this or that" or
whatever..They need to be able to see every bit as much as a baseball
player needs to be able to run..it's PART OF THE JOB..
I can't think of a single retail job at Toy's R Us that can be done by
someone who is blind. It's not that kind of store...
I have 5 kids, and have shopped them for years...it's a mad house
sometimes
On Oct 3, 11:56?am, "Jim"
> "Travis Newbury"
>
> news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
> >
> >> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated to
> >> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
> >> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable accommodation.
>
> > So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
> > experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
> > job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
> > horribly disfigured...
>
> > Can she sue me because I did not hire her?
>
> Yup.
>
> Discrimination because she
>
> > is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
>
> Yup.
>
> Do I want some> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they walk
> > into my restaurant?
>
> > Hell no.
>
> Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
Ok..so by that logic, a mdeling agency can be sued for not hiring the
disfigured woman? And if so, why not? Can Hooters be sued by a woman
with very small breast? If not, why?
In article <5mi1feFdcbcfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger
> Are you
> trying to impress me with how you're the kind of person who, once he
> gets an idea into his head, won't change his mind for any reason whatsoever?
I like this. I hope it is ok if I use it, I come across a lot
intransigent people...
--
dorayme
On Oct 3, 12:20?pm, "Six String Stu"
> "Relayer"
>
> news:1191424256.902076.108650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
> >
> >> Relayer wrote:
> >> > If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
> >> > and apply.
>
> >> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
> >> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
> >> making their website accessible.
>
> > Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
> > can he work there doorknob?
>
> > It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
> > difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
> > someone who is blind nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
> > who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
> > accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
> > as of yet to do so.
>
> Then you had better read up on the "equal accomidation" laws before starting
> up any business.
> Places of business that serve the public DO have to make thier services
> accessible to the disabled. It's the law.
>
>
>
>
>
> > In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
> > which is a WHOLE different animal.
>
> > And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
> > lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stu, first off, I have owned my own business.
Second, I have run a number of companies.
Third, we are not talking accessability or accomidation here. (I
actually think I had a typo there..I said Toys R Us is
accessible..their web site might not be)
The OP complained and wants to sue because their website is not usable
by disabled people (so we all assume he is blind..as I cant think of
another reason why it's not usable)
It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
legally required to be accessible) and apply for the job (and if
blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
there).
Has nothing to do with a business being accessible, as most are. In
fact, it's rare now to find one that isn't, so people are running out
of people to sue.
Stu, you are legally blind. Do you think you could run around a Toy's
R Us and find the newest "My Pretty Pony" the mother with 6 kids in
tow is trying to find, while 6 other people are trying to return their
lead paint toys and you need to do a price check on the latest Hot
Wheels '67 Camero (all toys that do NOT have braille?)
How would you handle it if you couldnt read the packaging. Sue Mattel
because their Hot Wheels are not handicapped accessible? Or Toys R Us
because they stock toys like that (which by the way, are almost all
toys)?
Relayer wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:43?am, "Jim"
>> "Relayer"
>>> qualified for?
>>> Come on..this is bullshit.
>> That's why the rest of us are over here in the corner throwing a
>> plonking party!!!
>
> Well, Harlan said something to the effect that they have to hire under
> the same criteria as a normal person if reasonable accomidations can
> be made.
>
> Retail sales people at Toys R Us HAVE to be able to see.
I'm going to pass over to you the question that Feelgood keeps
misguidedly throwing at me: Where did you get the idea that the OP can't
*see*?
Relayer wrote:
> On Oct 3, 12:20?pm, "Six String Stu"
>> "Relayer"
>>
>> news:1191424256.902076.108650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
>>>
>>>> Relayer wrote:
>>>>> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
>>>>> and apply.
>>>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>>>> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>>>> making their website accessible.
>>> Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
>>> can he work there doorknob?
>>> It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
>>> difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
>>> someone who is blind nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
>>> who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
>>> accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
>>> as of yet to do so.
>> Then you had better read up on the "equal accomidation" laws before starting
>> up any business.
>> Places of business that serve the public DO have to make thier services
>> accessible to the disabled. It's the law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
>>> which is a WHOLE different animal.
>>> And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
>>> lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Stu, first off, I have owned my own business.
>
> Second, I have run a number of companies.
>
> Third, we are not talking accessability or accomidation here. (I
> actually think I had a typo there..I said Toys R Us is
> accessible..their web site might not be)
>
> The OP complained and wants to sue because their website is not usable
> by disabled people (so we all assume he is blind..as I cant think of
> another reason why it's not usable)
Obviously my earlier messages have gone in one eye and out the other.
Websites can be inaccessible to:
* The mobility impaired, such as people lacking the dexterity necessary
for using a mouse, when a website provides functionality available only
via mouse movements and clicks.
* The deaf, when instructions are provided through audio only, or when
audio cues are provided to convey feedback that isn't also provided in
another fashion.
* People with *poor* eyesight, who can't read the text on the Toys R Us
and who can't make it larger because the font size is set, for some
reason, at a fixed number of pixels.
* People who are color blind, when color alone is used to provide
substantive information, such as when a chart contains bars or lines
distinguished only by color, leaving the user unable to tell which bar
or line goes with each item in the key; or when a website for an
airline, on its seat selection page, distinguishes available seats from
unavailable seats only by coloring them green and red, respectively.
* People with reading disabilities, when websites present information in
scrolling form, or a bit at a time in slide show form with the slides
advancing automatically and with no way for the user to freeze each
slide until he has finished reading it.
> It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
> legally required to be accessible)
You have no basis for this assertion.
> and apply for the job (and if
> blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
> there).
>
> Has nothing to do with a business being accessible, as most are. In
> fact, it's rare now to find one that isn't, so people are running out
> of people to sue.
If a business runs a website as part of its operation, then that *is*
part of the business, and if it isn't accessible, that means that the
business is not completely accessible.
On Oct 3, 3:36?pm, Harlan Messinger
> Relayer wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 11:43?am, "Jim"
> >> "Relayer"
> >>> qualified for?
> >>> Come on..this is bullshit.
> >> That's why the rest of us are over here in the corner throwing a
> >> plonking party!!!
>
> > Well, Harlan said something to the effect that they have to hire under
> > the same criteria as a normal person if reasonable accomidations can
> > be made.
>
> > Retail sales people at Toys R Us HAVE to be able to see.
>
> I'm going to pass over to you the question that Feelgood keeps
> misguidedly throwing at me: Where did you get the idea that the OP can't
> *see*?
It was thrown out to the "crowd" here 1 or 2 posts in and thats what
set this train wreck on it's current course. In addition, why about
the TRU website is not accessible to anyone else and if it was by
chance, how would THAT person even vaugley qualify for a job?
Relayer wrote:
> On Oct 3, 3:36?pm, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Relayer wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 11:43?am, "Jim"
>>>> "Relayer"
>>>>> qualified for?
>>>>> Come on..this is bullshit.
>>>> That's why the rest of us are over here in the corner throwing a
>>>> plonking party!!!
>>> Well, Harlan said something to the effect that they have to hire under
>>> the same criteria as a normal person if reasonable accomidations can
>>> be made.
>>> Retail sales people at Toys R Us HAVE to be able to see.
>> I'm going to pass over to you the question that Feelgood keeps
>> misguidedly throwing at me: Where did you get the idea that the OP can't
>> *see*?
>
> It was thrown out to the "crowd" here 1 or 2 posts in and thats what
> set this train wreck on it's current course. In addition, why about
> the TRU website is not accessible to anyone else
I already wrote a message covering that.
> and if it was by
> chance, how would THAT person even vaugley qualify for a job?
A person can't have a job at Toys R Us because he can't read a web page
when the font is too small?
You can't supervise the floor staff just because you don't have the
manual dexterity needed to use a mouse?
Why don't you *ask* if you don't understand the issues, rather than
assuming you already know everything there is to know?
"Relayer"
news:1191442944.834142.168240@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
> On Oct 3, 12:20?pm, "Six String Stu"
>> "Relayer"
>>
>> news:1191424256.902076.108650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
>> >
>> >> Relayer wrote:
>> >> > If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R
>> >> > Us
>> >> > and apply.
>>
>> >> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>> >> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>> >> making their website accessible.
>>
>> > Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
>> > can he work there doorknob?
>>
>> > It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
>> > difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
>> > someone who is blind nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
>> > who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
>> > accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
>> > as of yet to do so.
>>
>> Then you had better read up on the "equal accomidation" laws before
>> starting
>> up any business.
>> Places of business that serve the public DO have to make thier services
>> accessible to the disabled. It's the law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
>> > which is a WHOLE different animal.
>>
>> > And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
>> > lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.- Hide quoted
>> > text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Stu, first off, I have owned my own business.
>
> Second, I have run a number of companies.
>
> Third, we are not talking accessability or accomidation here. (I
> actually think I had a typo there..I said Toys R Us is
> accessible..their web site might not be)
>
> The OP complained and wants to sue because their website is not usable
> by disabled people (so we all assume he is blind..as I cant think of
> another reason why it's not usable)
Well being not able to think of any other reason a web site could be
inaccessable is disregarding some other disabling conditions. Not allways
sight.
What's that guy in the wheel chair with the brilant brain that speaks
through a laptop?
Mobility can even be differnt. Just to throw a bit more sand in the fan (but
to make a point) what if a person had become agorophobic after having her
face tradically scarred. Could not function within close visual contact of
other members in society.?
BUT this person could take online orders and process sales down the line,
had the ability to spend lots of hours servicing customer requests and
keeping the gears of capitoism turning. Yet couldnt telecommute to the
initial interview that would set up the work from home agreement?
Or possibly the person is tied to keyboard use only and does not use a
mouse?
It's not all about screen readers and text to speach engines or alt text
comments behind web images.
And it has been my observation that even in the light of knowing what the
impairment was and the way the discrimination took place , nothing would
prevent some folks from proving how little is comphrehended despite all of
that which in "known".
>
> It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
> legally required to be accessible) and apply for the job (and if
> blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
> there).
Again there are some jobs which the public does not have contact with. Most
of these big stores have an office. And office workers. Answering phones,
running a help desk, watching security monitors et cetera.
>
> Has nothing to do with a business being accessible, as most are. In
> fact, it's rare now to find one that isn't, so people are running out
> of people to sue.
>
> Stu, you are legally blind. Do you think you could run around a Toy's
> R Us and find the newest "My Pretty Pony" the mother with 6 kids in
> tow is trying to find, while 6 other people are trying to return their
> lead paint toys and you need to do a price check on the latest Hot
> Wheels '67 Camero (all toys that do NOT have braille?)
>
Well Braille wouldn't help me a bit. I am legally blind. But you wouldn't
suspect it untill I told you. That has a lot less to do with my having
overcome the loss of sight and adjusting/ compensating to my disability, and
more to how often it's the sighted folk take thier own vision for granted.
There are many forms, types and manifestations of limited vision. It's
confusing unless you have a doctorette or "livin with it education".
> How would you handle it if you couldnt read the packaging. Sue Mattel
> because their Hot Wheels are not handicapped accessible? Or Toys R Us
> because they stock toys like that (which by the way, are almost all
> toys)?
>
Rhetorical question, good I'm not required to answer those :-)
On 2007-10-03, dorayme wrote:
> In article <5mi1feFdcbcfU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger
>
>> Are you
>> trying to impress me with how you're the kind of person who, once he
>> gets an idea into his head, won't change his mind for any reason whatsoever?
>
> I like this. I hope it is ok if I use it, I come across a lot
> intransigent people...
Some people have so few ideas that they have to keep whatever they
can get.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
robert is pretty well know around the internet for these kinds of
(mis)statements - his disability is in the psychological realm, and he
has a counselor who works with him trying to smooth the edges
as to the toysrus issue - they, like most large employers today, have
multiple methods for prospective employees to apply for a position:
in person at any location
by mail
via the internet
robert misunderstands and isn't grasping the concept of 'use any method
one wishes' to apply.
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" wrote:
>
> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
On Oct 3, 4:25?pm, "Six String Stu"
> "Relayer"
>
> news:1191442944.834142.168240@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 12:20?pm, "Six String Stu"
> >> "Relayer"
>
> >>news:1191424256.902076.108650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com. ..
>
> >> > On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
> >> >
> >> >> Relayer wrote:
>
> Well being not able to think of any other reason a web site could be
> inaccessable is disregarding some other disabling conditions. Not allways
> sight.
> What's that guy in the wheel chair with the brilant brain that speaks
> through a laptop?
And that prevents him from accessing the TRU website and applying for
a job?
No.
> Mobility can even be differnt. Just to throw a bit more sand in the fan (but
> to make a point) what if a person had become agorophobic after having her
> face tradically scarred. Could not function within close visual contact of
> other members in society.?
And that prevents him from accessing the TRU website and applying for
a job?
No.
> BUT this person could take online orders and process sales down the line,
> had the ability to spend lots of hours servicing customer requests and
> keeping the gears of capitoism turning. Yet couldnt telecommute to the
> initial interview that would set up the work from home agreement?
> Or possibly the person is tied to keyboard use only and does not use a
> mouse?
You dont need a mouse for a website. It works with a tab and return
key. You can apply without a mous on their site. I tried it.
> It's not all about screen readers and text to speach engines or alt text
> comments behind web images.
> And it has been my observation that even in the light of knowing what the
> impairment was and the way the discrimination took place , nothing would
> prevent some folks from proving how little is comphrehended despite all of
> that which in "known".
huh? LOL
>
>
>
> > It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
> > legally required to be accessible) and apply for the job (and if
> > blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
> > there).
>
> Again there are some jobs which the public does not have contact with. Most
> of these big stores have an office. And office workers. Answering phones,
> running a help desk, watching security monitors et cetera.
And each have certain physical requirements. I would assume someone
legally blind could not be watching the security camera's. Someone
agoraphobic could not have an office job. Someone deaf and dumb could
not answer the phone. My point was if the guy "was" blind, he wouldnt
qualify for a retail floor position. He would however, if he was
wheelchair bound and I am pretty sure TRU wouldnt have a problem
hiring that person.
>
> Well Braille wouldn't help me a bit. I am legally blind. But you wouldn't
> suspect it untill I told you. That has a lot less to do with my having
> overcome the loss of sight and adjusting/ compensating to my disability, and
> more to how often it's the sighted folk take thier own vision for granted.
> There are many forms, types and manifestations of limited vision. It's
> confusing unless you have a doctorette or "livin with it education".
Why wouldnt braille help? You are blind. Regardless if you use it on a
daily basis, if in the event your blindness is progressive, it might
be a good idea to learn it. But you have other issues like seizures
and stuff..I am talking about the blind in general though..( I
know..no cookie cutter blind people). I see blind people everyday
(seriously) and they do very well considering..better than I would do
if in their situation, but they would never be hired at TRU for
anything that actually required someone be able to see..
>
> > How would you handle it if you couldnt read the packaging. Sue Mattel
> > because their Hot Wheels are not handicapped accessible? Or Toys R Us
> > because they stock toys like that (which by the way, are almost all
> > toys)?
>
> Rhetorical question, good I'm not required to answer those :-)-
:-P
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:59 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
> > > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
> > > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
> > > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
> > Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
> > who don't use a monitor,...
>
> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> > Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
> > low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
> > Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
> From: Harlan Messinger
> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
Ah, thanks! So first I did a Google search for Target Stores, and
checked whether their Web pages worked from here:
store locator - works fine, showed store 2 blocks from here, and
store several miles from here, and I stopped looking at that point
because I was satisfied.
Welcome to Target
I had nothing specific to do there so I didn't test it fully.
http://target.com/careers/ - Completely broken. All I see is:
[javascript_disabled]
So Target is just as bad as Toys {backR} Us in this regard, but at
least they are aware of the problem already, and users can see
immediately what the problem is without needing to look at the HTML
source themselves.
Next I looked at the article you showed me, and traced some links:
National Federation of the Blind
Graphic consisting of two photos. Left picture is group of children
with white canes enjoying a hayride. Right picture is extreme close-up
of finger reading braille.
Indeed, they seem to be doing that right!
Linkname: Court Ruling Says California Disabled Rights Law
URL: http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=221
Aha, one of the three legal firms that filed the class-action
lawsuit against Target is in Berkeley, so I am going to send them
e-mail shortly ... done. Which reminds me: I can't remember the URL
from that card that Bonny gave me that advertised the Web site for
applying for employment, and I can't find it via Google either. It
was something like trucareer.com, but that's not right, and I can't
guess the exact site name. I guess I'll have to ask Bonny to find
it again just so I can complain properly.
"Chaddy2222"
news:1191475913.915959.147510@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:59 am, Chaddy2222
>>
>> wrote:
>> > > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so
>> > > YOU
>> > > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news
>> > > group,
>> > > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>> > Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those
>> > of us
>> > who don't use a monitor,...
>>
>> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
> I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
> --
> Regards Chad. >
Did your reader yell at you when it came to the caps?
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Chaddy2222"
> news:1191475913.915959.147510@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
> >
> > Travis Newbury wrote:
> >> On Oct 2, 9:59 am, Chaddy2222
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so
> >> > > YOU
> >> > > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news
> >> > > group,
> >> > > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
> >> > Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those
> >> > of us
> >> > who don't use a monitor,...
> >>
> >> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
> > I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
> > --
> > Regards Chad. >
>
>
> Did your reader yell at you when it came to the caps?
No, that was my point about useing all caps, aural browsers can't
tell the difference between all caps and normal wording, unless the
capital letter is at the start of a sentence obviously.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Harlan Messinger
@mid.individual.net:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> For the record, I just ran most of the way through the on-line
> application for hourly store employees and observed just one real
> barrier that would take about a minute to fix, and one nuisance.
>
I went to https://jobsearch.unicru.com/toysrus/?RP=CR and tried to open
it in Opera and Safari. Both times, I was directed to a "You don't have
the right browser" page - which says:
--------------------------
Supported Web Browsers:
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.x
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x (Click here to download the latest IE
browser)
Netscape Navigator 7.x (Click here to download the latest Netscape
browser)
Please note that beta versions of web browsers are not supported. If
you are an AOL user, please complete your application with an alternate
supported browser after you have opened your AOL network connection.
Supported Operating Systems:
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP
-------------------------------------------
That bit about AOLers having to use an alternate supported browser
....and what, no Mac?
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>> From: Harlan Messinger
>> Re the Target lawsuit on this subject:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/ts_nm/target_blind_dc_3
>
> Ah, thanks! So first I did a Google search for Target Stores, and
> checked whether their Web pages worked from here:
>
> store locator - works fine, showed store 2 blocks from here, and
> store several miles from here, and I stopped looking at that point
> because I was satisfied.
>
> Welcome to Target
> I had nothing specific to do there so I didn't test it fully.
>
> http://target.com/careers/ - Completely broken. All I see is:
> [javascript_disabled]
Well, you *could* enable Javascript. One principle that seems to be
attached to the accessibility guidelines is that authors are permitted
to take existing technology into consideration, so they don't have to
assume, for example, that blind people are using Lynx, since they *can*
avail themselves of Internet Explorer. I don't know all the details, but
I do know that Javascript on a site I oversee has passed muster with the
508 reviewers at the agency in question, except for a couple of details
which they had us fix.
> From: "DrFeelgoodWA"
> some jackass wanting to sue Toys R [sic] Us for not making their
> website job application understandable to idiots that have IQ's in
> the sub human range?
My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
> > In the meantime prices rise at all target stores to cover stupid
> > nuisance lawsuit cost.
> From: Harlan Messinger
> Does it occur to you that it's a company's own fault if they lose
> expensive lawsuits because they balk at spending a *little* bit
> of money to achieve compliance in the first place?
Actually I might be willing to work for free, to set up a
lynx-accessible version of their Web site, if they were willing to
provide me with whatever information they want to show on their Web
site, and if they were willing to provide me a good recommendation
if I do a good job. So the *little* bit of money they'd need to be
spend would be even less than you probably imagine.
> From: Travis Newbury
> So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
> experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
> job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
> horribly disfigured...
> Can she sue me because I did not hire her? Discrimination because she
> is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face? Do I want some
> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see when they walk
> into my restaurant?
> Hell no.
If your restaurant is large enough to support more than one waiter
working simultaneously during busy hours, I would propose the
following accomodation which would not offend customers in any
major way: Have your less-qualified but prettier waitress greet
customers at the door and ask them whether they'd like service with
their very best waitress, whose face was severely disfigured in a
fire, whereby you can get a table immediately, or service with
"me", the "pretty one", whereby there'll be a ten minute wait for a
table and service will be generally slower throughout the dinner
because "I'm the pretty one and everyone wants me even if they have
to wait longer". The pretty waitress can even show a photo of the
disfigured face to anyone undecided which waitress to select.
My guess is that most women will choose the better-qualified but
disfigured waitress, and most husbands who overrule their wives and
insist on the pretty waitress will sleep on the couch, or worse.
> From: Harlan Messinger
> Poverty is not a disability covered by disability law.
This is an interesting point. IMO it's reasonable to require that
somebody wishing to purchase something have the money to pay for
it, and that somebody wishing to purchase some very expensive item
have a lot of money to pay for it. If people are unemployed because
of disability, and because of their unemployment they don't have
money to buy stuff, then it's reasonable that they be disallowed
from buying it, and it isn't the fault of the seller of goods that
the disabled person doesn't have enough money to buy stuff.
But what about employment itself? It shouldn't be necessary to have
lots of money before-the-fact to start a new job to earn money. If
an employer requires somebody to have lots of money already, as
qualification for a new job, then the employer *would* be partly
responsible for the person continuing not to have enough money, and
I think that would be wrong, and the courts might interpret that is
deliberate barring of already-poor disabled people from ever
escaping their poverty.
Making a shopping Web site inaccessible to poverty-level people
might be reasonable, because after all
afford a brand new computer they probably also can't afford the
toothbrush they were trying to buy online
an employment Web site inaccessible to low-income people who can't
afford a brand-new computer would seem to me to fall within this
type of case. Why should ownership of a brand-new computer be a
requirement of applying for a job online? For work-at-home
contractors, of course the contractor is expected to provide his
own computer, but for regular employment if the new computer is
needed for the job then the employer is supposed to provide it,
right? What do the rest of you think?
> From: "Six String Stu"
> BUT this person could take online orders and process sales down
> the line, had the ability to spend lots of hours servicing customer
> requests and keeping the gears of capitoism [sic] turning.
Hey, I think I could do that.
> Yet couldnt telecommute to the initial interview that would set
> up the work from home agreement?
I can't even see the Web page that tells me whether they even have
an opening like that. Will somebody please post a summary list of
jobs available at Target and Toys {backR} Us?
> Most of these big stores have an office. And office workers.
> Answering phones, running a help desk, watching security monitors
> et cetera.
Hey, like the TV show "Las Vegas"!! I'd get bored watching just one
security monitor, or even several if nothing was happening for long
periods of time, but if I had interesting stuff to watch, like they
do on the TV show, and if I could simply press a button (or call
over to somebody in the same room) to alert additional staff
whenever I saw something suspicious on one of the monitors
(different button for each monitor), I think I could do the job.
But I can't even see the Web page that tells me whether they even
have an opening like that. Will somebody please post a summary list
of jobs available at Target and Toys {backR} Us, or at least tell
me if there are any jobs that don't require personal ownership of a
brand-new computer at home that has direct InterNet access (PPP or
DSL or WiFi etc.) with JavaScript and images both working and
usable?
> how often it's the sighted folk take [sic: /e/ing/] thier [sic: /ie/ei/]
> own vision for granted.
For individuals, indeed even people who are disabled themselves can
sometimes overlook somebody else's disability if it's "different".
A "heads up" would be appropriate in such cases, and it usually
suffices to correct the non-understanding person.
But for large companies that have many employees, surely they have
at least one employee with each major kind of disability (unless
they flagrantly discriminate against some/all disabilities), hence
they could easily call in their various disabled employees to test
their Web site for accessibility (and quickly fix anything that
isn't universally accessible before they leave the inaccessible
site online even a couple days), IMO.
their Web pages and physical stores etc. for various kinds of
accessibility would seem to be a part-time job for which disabled
people would be especially qualified!
excuse for big companies such as Target or Toys {backR} Us to have
lynx-inaccessible Web sites. Maybe I should send a FAX to both
those local stores informing them that their job-openings Web site
is lynx-inaccessible and offering to work for them part-time at the
legal minimum wage to test their Web pages for lynx accessibility
and suggesting changes to the people who are in charge of
maintaining them.
Target 211 W. Iowa Street, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Fax: 408-996-4422
Toys R US 130 E El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
I can't find Toys {backR} Us's FAX number online.
Looking in telephone directory, I see voice number is 408-732-0331,
and searching Google for that I see:
which verifies the voice# but still doesn't have FAX#.
I have only one phone line, so I'll need to call them and ask their
FAX number sometime I'm not online.
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
in message news:rem-2007oct04-001@yahoo.com...
>> From: "DrFeelgoodWA"
>> some jackass wanting to sue Toys R [sic] Us for not making their
>> website job application understandable to idiots that have IQ's in
>> the sub human range?
>
> My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
> 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
> it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
> that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
> discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
A bit higher than yours. Mensa bugged the hell out of me for several
years begging me to join. More importantly I don't feel it makes me
the least bit better than others as you seem to. Long ago I figured
out we all end up as worm bait or ashes. The only thing that really
counts in this life is how well you value your fellow humans. I place
a very high value on every human life.
Suing for personal financial gain to the detriment of others is just
wrong on so many levels and lowers the standard of life for a large
majority. What one does effects many, rather what you do appreciates
or depreciates the lives of others. I would much rather be found on
the positive side of that equation when my final day comes.
> > http://target.com/careers/ - Completely broken. All I see is:
> > [javascript_disabled]
> From: Harlan Messinger
> Well, you *could* enable Javascript.
Nope, it's not possible. Neither lynx nor any other browser
supports JavaScript over VT100 dialup.
> One principle that seems to be attached to the accessibility
> guidelines is that authors are permitted to take existing
> technology into consideration, ...
By that argument, since iPhone is the latest way to get access to
the InterNet, companies would be perfectly reasonable to change
their job-ad listings so that the *only* way they are accessible is
via iPhone, anyone without iPhone need not apply.
If the duties of the job are to take orders via iPhone, and the
company is so small they can't afford to provide iPhones for their
employees doing this kind of work, every employee must provide
his/her own iPhone before starting work, then maybe it would be
reasonable to deny employment to anyone not already owning an
iPhone. But in that case, why not offer the option of taking the
cost of the iPhone ($300) out of the first month's wages? And
instead of not allowing non-iPhone-owners to even see the job ads,
why not say that all jobs require owning iPhones?
Do you honestly believe that every job at Toys {backR} Us requires
the employee to own their own personal computer with JavaScript in
order to perform the job?
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> From: Harlan Messinger
>> Poverty is not a disability covered by disability law.
>
> This is an interesting point. IMO it's reasonable to require that
> somebody wishing to purchase something have the money to pay for
> it, and that somebody wishing to purchase some very expensive item
> have a lot of money to pay for it. If people are unemployed because
> of disability, and because of their unemployment they don't have
> money to buy stuff, then it's reasonable that they be disallowed
> from buying it, and it isn't the fault of the seller of goods that
> the disabled person doesn't have enough money to buy stuff.
>
> But what about employment itself? It shouldn't be necessary to have
> lots of money before-the-fact to start a new job to earn money. If
> an employer requires somebody to have lots of money already, as
> qualification for a new job, then the employer *would* be partly
> responsible for the person continuing not to have enough money, and
> I think that would be wrong, and the courts might interpret that is
> deliberate barring of already-poor disabled people from ever
> escaping their poverty.
What are you *talking* about? Where did you ever mention anything that
prevents a person who doesn't already have money from applying for a job
at Toys R Us?
> Making a shopping Web site inaccessible to poverty-level people
> might be reasonable, because after all
> afford a brand new computer they probably also can't afford the
> toothbrush they were trying to buy online
> an employment Web site inaccessible to low-income people who can't
> afford a brand-new computer would seem to me to fall within this
> type of case. Why should ownership of a brand-new computer be a
> requirement of applying for a job online?
Where are you coming up with this "brand-new computer" requirement?
> For work-at-home
> contractors, of course the contractor is expected to provide his
> own computer, but for regular employment if the new computer is
> needed for the job then the employer is supposed to provide it,
> right? What do the rest of you think?
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
message news:rem-2007oct04-004@yahoo.com...
>> From: Harlan Messinger
>> Poverty is not a disability covered by disability law.
>
> This is an interesting point. IMO it's reasonable to require that
> somebody wishing to purchase something have the money to pay for
> it, and that somebody wishing to purchase some very expensive item
> have a lot of money to pay for it. If people are unemployed because
> of disability, and because of their unemployment they don't have
> money to buy stuff, then it's reasonable that they be disallowed
> from buying it, and it isn't the fault of the seller of goods that
> the disabled person doesn't have enough money to buy stuff.
>
> But what about employment itself? It shouldn't be necessary to have
> lots of money before-the-fact to start a new job to earn money. If
> an employer requires somebody to have lots of money already, as
> qualification for a new job, then the employer *would* be partly
> responsible for the person continuing not to have enough money, and
> I think that would be wrong, and the courts might interpret that is
> deliberate barring of already-poor disabled people from ever
> escaping their poverty.
As the middle class becomes more few and the sepperation of the haves and
have nots widens, folks will start believing that America has been sold to
the coporate greed machine. Our laws become more and more tilted every year
to serve big "industry" and subject the populace to more restrictions.
Face it, we are headed into an elitist society. Didn't work for Rome either.
>
> Making a shopping Web site inaccessible to poverty-level people
> might be reasonable, because after all
> afford a brand new computer they probably also can't afford the
> toothbrush they were trying to buy online
> an employment Web site inaccessible to low-income people who can't
> afford a brand-new computer would seem to me to fall within this
> type of case. Why should ownership of a brand-new computer be a
> requirement of applying for a job online? For work-at-home
> contractors, of course the contractor is expected to provide his
> own computer, but for regular employment if the new computer is
> needed for the job then the employer is supposed to provide it,
> right? What do the rest of you think?
I think the employer would even put in a sepperate phone line to go with
that computer, as long as they could turn a profit and ensure that the
equipment and services were only used for the employers purposes. But I also
think it'd be sort of hard to get an employer to think that way. It would
have to be an employee that showed great promise.
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>
> For the record, I just ran most of the way through the on-line
> application for hourly store employees and observed just one real
> barrier that would take about a minute to fix, and one nuisance.
>
> I accomplished the entire thing by keyboard. All information is
> communicated in text. There is no flashing, no scrolling or limited-time
> display. Color is not used to convey information.
> [snip]
> So that's it. One problem that would be extremely easy to fix, and one
> possible problem that could be worked out differently. One might wonder
> why Toys R Us, if someone were to put them on notice about this,
> wouldn't make this simple effort rather than be exposed even to
> complaints, let alone legal action.
Another issue I just noticed when attempting to use the site with Lynx:
*overuse* of alt text. The author evidently doesn't understand that the
alt attribute should be left empty UNLESS the image is conveying
substantive information. This site is littered with the names of image
files and references to "spacer" that should be eliminated.
Finally, my Lynx client doesn't support https (secure http), and the
application area communicates using https, so I was unable to get to the
application with Lynx. Establishing secure communication for an
interaction that involves transmission of personal information is
important. If it turns out that the reason the OP's can't get to the job
information and application is because his browser doesn't support
https, well, yes, that's a barrier, but it isn't unreasonable to require
that users have a browser that supports https because security of the
consideration is a bona fide necessity.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> http://target.com/careers/ - Completely broken. All I see is:
>>> [javascript_disabled]
>> From: Harlan Messinger
>> Well, you *could* enable Javascript.
>
> Nope, it's not possible. Neither lynx nor any other browser
> supports JavaScript over VT100 dialup.
>
>> One principle that seems to be attached to the accessibility
>> guidelines is that authors are permitted to take existing
>> technology into consideration, ...
>
> By that argument, since iPhone is the latest way to get access to
> the InterNet, companies would be perfectly reasonable to change
> their job-ad listings so that the *only* way they are accessible is
> via iPhone, anyone without iPhone need not apply.
Not really. It isn't just a question of whether the technology exists,
but whether it has attained wide use or availability. It's more like
saying that phone companies don't have to support communications via
telephones manufactured in the 1930s.
> If the duties of the job are to take orders via iPhone, and the
> company is so small they can't afford to provide iPhones for their
> employees doing this kind of work, every employee must provide
> his/her own iPhone before starting work, then maybe it would be
> reasonable to deny employment to anyone not already owning an
> iPhone. But in that case, why not offer the option of taking the
> cost of the iPhone ($300) out of the first month's wages? And
> instead of not allowing non-iPhone-owners to even see the job ads,
> why not say that all jobs require owning iPhones?
>
> Do you honestly believe that every job at Toys {backR} Us requires
> the employee to own their own personal computer with JavaScript in
> order to perform the job?
No, but then, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, people
who don't have a computer can go to the store to apply.
In any event, I see that your issue is now not about disability at all,
which is what I'd originally thought, but about the fact of not owning a
computer.
"Harlan Messinger"
message news:5mkkljFdvsnbU1@mid.individual.net...
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>> Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>> low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>>> Is there any lawyer in the audience who will help me sue them?
>>
>> For the record, I just ran most of the way through the on-line
>> application for hourly store employees and observed just one real
>> barrier that would take about a minute to fix, and one nuisance.
>>
>> I accomplished the entire thing by keyboard. All information is
>> communicated in text. There is no flashing, no scrolling or
>> limited-time display. Color is not used to convey information.
>> [snip]
>> So that's it. One problem that would be extremely easy to fix, and
>> one possible problem that could be worked out differently. One
>> might wonder why Toys R Us, if someone were to put them on notice
>> about this, wouldn't make this simple effort rather than be exposed
>> even to complaints, let alone legal action.
>
> Another issue I just noticed when attempting to use the site with
> Lynx: *overuse* of alt text. The author evidently doesn't understand
> that the alt attribute should be left empty UNLESS the image is
> conveying substantive information. This site is littered with the
> names of image files and references to "spacer" that should be
> eliminated.
>
> Finally, my Lynx client doesn't support https (secure http), and the
> application area communicates using https, so I was unable to get to
> the application with Lynx. Establishing secure communication for an
> interaction that involves transmission of personal information is
> important. If it turns out that the reason the OP's can't get to the
> job information and application is because his browser doesn't
> support https, well, yes, that's a barrier, but it isn't
> unreasonable to require that users have a browser that supports
> https because security of the consideration is a bona fide
> necessity.
Put your Linux where the sun don't shine.
DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger"
> message news:5mkkljFdvsnbU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Finally, my Lynx client doesn't support https (secure http), and the
> [snip]
> Put your Linux where the sun don't shine.
>
>
Lynx, not Linux. Yeah, I can see why you're so widely plonked. What an
attitude. I bet you get plonked in real life too.
"Relayer"
news:1191442395.223422.126890@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
> On Oct 3, 11:56?am, "Jim"
>> "Travis Newbury"
>>
>> news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
>> >
>> >> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated
>> >> to
>> >> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
>> >> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable
>> >> accommodation.
>>
>> > So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
>> > experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
>> > job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
>> > horribly disfigured...
>>
>> > Can she sue me because I did not hire her?
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> Discrimination because she
>>
>> > is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> Do I want some> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see
>> when they walk
>> > into my restaurant?
>>
>> > Hell no.
>>
>> Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
>
> Ok..so by that logic, a mdeling agency can be sued for not hiring the
> disfigured woman? And if so, why not?
If they are selling a product (beauty) that she cannot help provide;
they are probly exempt. Can mutes work at radio stations?????????
Can Hooters be sued by a woman
> with very small breast? If not, why?
>
MEN can and do work at Hooters.
"Chaddy2222"
news:1191475913.915959.147510@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:59 am, Chaddy2222
>> wrote:
>> > > In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so YOU
>> > > HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news group,
>> > > perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>> > Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
>> > who don't use a monitor,...
>>
>> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
> I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
I'm curious; how does it interpret caps? Louder? Deeper voice? Slower?
Cheers,
Jim
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>
"Jim"
news:4faNi.38361$RX.38045@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Relayer"
> news:1191442395.223422.126890@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
>> On Oct 3, 11:56?am, "Jim"
>>> "Travis Newbury"
>>>
>>> news:1191429553.952048.5090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Oct 3, 11:33 am, Harlan Messinger
>>> >
>>> >> Now it's evident that you are ignorant of the law. They are obligated
>>> >> to
>>> >> hire him judging him under the same criteria as they would apply to
>>> >> anyone else as long as he can do the job with reasonable
>>> >> accommodation.
>>>
>>> > So, I have a restaurant and need a hostess. A woman, with years of
>>> > experience, the best qualified of all the applicants applies for the
>>> > job. The problem is she recently had her face burned in a fire and is
>>> > horribly disfigured...
>>>
>>> > Can she sue me because I did not hire her?
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> Discrimination because she
>>>
>>> > is "handicaped" because of her disfigured face?
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> Do I want some> disfigured woman to be the first thing my customers see
>>> when they walk
>>> > into my restaurant?
>>>
>>> > Hell no.
>>>
>>> Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
>>
>> Ok..so by that logic, a mdeling agency can be sued for not hiring the
>> disfigured woman? And if so, why not?
>
> If they are selling a product (beauty) that she cannot help provide;
> they are probly exempt. Can mutes work at radio stations?????????
>
> Can Hooters be sued by a woman
>> with very small breast? If not, why?
>>
> MEN can and do work at Hooters.
Lucky basterds!
>
"Six String Stu"
news:fe3d69012v3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Jim"
>> MEN can and do work at Hooters.
> Lucky basterds!
>>
My wife would kill me.....
"Jim"
news:gcbNi.30900$eY.5976@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Six String Stu"
> news:fe3d69012v3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Jim"
>>> MEN can and do work at Hooters.
>> Lucky basterds!
>>>
> My wife would kill me.....
>
And on the other side of the spectrum would be them dudes that read braille
and see with thier fingers.
(At Hooters) Lucky basterds :)
Chaddy2222
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
>> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
>
> I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
I'm curious - how does it read all caps? Does it assume it's an acronym
and spell it out letter-by-letter?
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
>> "Chaddy2222"
>> news:1191475913.915959.147510@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
>>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>>> On Oct 2, 9:59 am, Chaddy2222
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In addition, why would YOU sue them? You are HERE..on line..so
>>>>>> YOU
>>>>>> HAVE ACCESS to a computer...and instead of spamming a news
>>>>>> group,
>>>>>> perhaps you should have spent the time APPLYING for the job
>>>>> Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those
>>>>> of us
>>>>> who don't use a monitor,...
>>>> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
>>> I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
>>> --
>>> Regards Chad. >
>>
>> Did your reader yell at you when it came to the caps?
> No, that was my point about useing all caps, aural browsers can't
> tell the difference between all caps and normal wording, unless the
> capital letter is at the start of a sentence obviously.
You've just explained both that you *can't* tell from your screen reader
that he was using caps, and that you *did* know he used caps because
your screen reader told you so.
"Sherman Pendley"
news:m17im2pqbi.fsf@dot-app.org...
> Chaddy2222
>
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>
>>> How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
>>
>> I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
>
> I'm curious - how does it read all caps? Does it assume it's an acronym
> and spell it out letter-by-letter?
>
> sherm--
>
> --
> Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
> Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
There are a few tricks screen readers use to inform the person about
diction.
I'm not up on all the latest screen readers, but if I remeber correctly the
NFB has an entire floor devoted to assistive technology. They often publish
product reviews for the VI populace.
Look there for your answers.
In article
rem642b@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> > From: "DrFeelgoodWA"
> > some jackass wanting to sue Toys R [sic] Us for not making their
> > website job application understandable to idiots that have IQ's in
> > the sub human range?
>
> My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
> 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
> it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
> that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
> discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
I wonder why it is that everyone (except me) who tells the world
what their IQ is, puts in a very high figure? Last time I
measured mine, it was 82. I have explained this before.
--
dorayme
In article
rem642b@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> My guess is that most women will choose the better-qualified but
> disfigured waitress, and most husbands who overrule their wives and
> insist on the pretty waitress will sleep on the couch, or worse.
What a lot of tommy rot! Don't judge all men on your own
tendencies.
--
dorayme
On Oct 4, 1:31 am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> > > Hmmmm, I think you will find your caps key is useless for those of us
> > > who don't use a monitor,...
> > How did you know he used caps if you couldn't see the caps?
> I used my screen reader which reads everything aurally.
Again, you say it is useless to use CAPS if you don't use a monitor,
you don't use a monitor, so if you noticed, even aurally, the caps,
then they were not useless.
In article
"DrFeelgoodWA"
> > My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
> > 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
> > it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
> > that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
> > discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
>
> A bit higher than yours. Mensa bugged the hell out of me for several
> years begging me to join. More importantly I don't feel it makes me
> the least bit better than others as you seem to. Long ago I figured
> out we all end up as worm bait or ashes. The only thing that really
> counts in this life is how well you value your fellow humans. I place
> a very high value on every human life.
Why? Why on *every*? What reasoning does your brilliantly IQd
mind bring to bear on this? What do you see that I (on IQ < 82)
do not see? And you, on IQ higher than 150 cannot see that you
are the "least bit better than others"? Really? Share with us all
a more complete list of your conceits.
--
dorayme
On Oct 3, 1:04 pm, "DrFeelgoodWA"
> > Then sell the restaurant. Get a modeling agency. Duh.
> What if slug ugly decides she wants to be a model?
Or a midget wants to be on a basketball team. Where does the pain
stop....
On Oct 3, 4:13 pm, Relayer
> Ok..so by that logic, a mdeling agency can be sued for not hiring the
> disfigured woman? And if so, why not? Can Hooters be sued by a woman
> with very small breast? If not, why?
Actually (And I know this from experience as my neighbor is a hooters
girl with mighty small tits) They let them wear super padded push-up
bras. What's that saying "You can fool some of the people...."
On Oct 4, 2:26 pm, "Jim"
> Can Hooters be sued by a woman> with very small breast? If not, why?
>
> MEN can and do work at Hooters.
Maybe gay men....
On Oct 4, 6:36 pm, dorayme
> > My guess is that most women will choose the better-qualified but
> > disfigured waitress, and most husbands who overrule their wives and
> > insist on the pretty waitress will sleep on the couch, or worse.
> What a lot of tommy rot! Don't judge all men on your own
> tendencies.
But you are agreeing with his assessment of "most women"?
On Oct 3, 4:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> Obviously my earlier messages have gone in one eye and out the other.
That is the best line in this entire thread!
On Oct 4, 11:30 am, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
> 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
> it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
> that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
> discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
Who cares. I have a huge dick! (That is about as relevant to this
thread as your IQ)
In article
<1191538374.979272.126640@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 4, 6:36 pm, dorayme
> > > My guess is that most women will choose the better-qualified but
> > > disfigured waitress, and most husbands who overrule their wives and
> > > insist on the pretty waitress will sleep on the couch, or worse.
> > What a lot of tommy rot! Don't judge all men on your own
> > tendencies.
>
> But you are agreeing with his assessment of "most women"?
I suppose so. Have I fallen into some sort of logical trap?
--
dorayme
Travis Newbury
news:1191538872.471190.107420@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 4, 11:30 am, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>> My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
>> 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
>> it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
>> that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
>> discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
>
> Who cares. I have a huge dick!
Anyone can play a genius on the internet.
And as for your last comment,
>
>
"Travis Newbury"
news:1191538872.471190.107420@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.. .
> On Oct 4, 11:30 am, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see
> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> wrote:
>> My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
>> 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
>> it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
>> that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
>> discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
Mensa is for poseurs.
>
> Who cares. I have a huge dick! (That is about as relevant to this
> thread as your IQ)
>
LOL!!!
> > My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
> > 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers, but
> > it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
> > that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
> > discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
> From: "DrFeelgoodWA"
> A bit higher than yours. Mensa bugged the hell out of me for
> several years begging me to join.
Well congratulations on your high IQ, for what it's worth, and also
on being a two-faced hypocrite who speaks out of opposite sites of
your mouth:
-1- My IQ is higher than Robert's, nya nya nya, Mensa wants me, nya nya nya.
-2- IQ isn't important and nobody should brag about it.
> More importantly I don't feel it makes me the least bit better
> than others as you seem to.
There you go again putting words in my mouth as if I had said them.
I was merely citing my tested IQ to refute your claim that my IQ is
that of a moron, half of normal human. You're the only one bragging
about how Mensa craves to have you with them.
> Long ago I figured out we all end up as worm bait or ashes.
There is a third alternative which I might suggest in your case.
But the main point is that you're supposed to find some reason for
your life here, like enjoying life, or making babies to pass your
genes on past your individual death, etc. etc., many things to do
between birth and death. Death isn't the be-all and end-all of
life, it's just the end to all the activities you might have done.
If dying is your only reason to live, why bother posting to the net?
> Suing for personal financial gain to the detriment of others is
> just wrong on so many levels and lowers the standard of life for
> a large majority.
I disagree. Suing to end a practice of discrimination is good to do.
Unfortunately only a very few people have enough money to hire a
decent lawyer to do the suing. The rest of us (who have been abused
by discrimination or other harm) should sue but can't.
> I would much rather be found on the positive side of that
> equation when my final day comes.
If you believe that, and if your personal financial situation
provides you with some discretionary income, then you should use
some of that discretionary income to set up a system whereby
everyone who wants to work and is able to do anything productive
would be **GIVEN** a paying job whereby they are *ALLOWED* to work
productively in exchange for earned-income.
If everyone who can work and wants to work actually had a job,
nobody would need to sue potential employers for discrimination.
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t"
in message news:rem-2007oct05-001@yahoo.com...
>> > My IQ has been tested, two different IQ tests, one result around
>> > 145, the other around 155 (I can't remember the exact numbers,
>> > but
>> > it's irrelevant to this point), each of which in the top 1% for
>> > that particular test, hence qualifying me for Mensa even if you
>> > discount one of the tests. How high is *your* IQ?
>> From: "DrFeelgoodWA"
>> A bit higher than yours. Mensa bugged the hell out of me for
>> several years begging me to join.
>
> Well congratulations on your high IQ, for what it's worth, and also
> on being a two-faced hypocrite who speaks out of opposite sites of
> your mouth:
> -1- My IQ is higher than Robert's, nya nya nya, Mensa wants me, nya
> nya nya.
> -2- IQ isn't important and nobody should brag about it.
>
>> More importantly I don't feel it makes me the least bit better
>> than others as you seem to.
>
> There you go again putting words in my mouth as if I had said them.
> I was merely citing my tested IQ to refute your claim that my IQ is
> that of a moron, half of normal human. You're the only one bragging
> about how Mensa craves to have you with them.
>
>> Long ago I figured out we all end up as worm bait or ashes.
>
> There is a third alternative which I might suggest in your case.
>
> But the main point is that you're supposed to find some reason for
> your life here, like enjoying life, or making babies to pass your
> genes on past your individual death, etc. etc., many things to do
> between birth and death. Death isn't the be-all and end-all of
> life, it's just the end to all the activities you might have done.
> If dying is your only reason to live, why bother posting to the net?
>
>> Suing for personal financial gain to the detriment of others is
>> just wrong on so many levels and lowers the standard of life for
>> a large majority.
>
> I disagree. Suing to end a practice of discrimination is good to do.
> Unfortunately only a very few people have enough money to hire a
> decent lawyer to do the suing. The rest of us (who have been abused
> by discrimination or other harm) should sue but can't.
>
>> I would much rather be found on the positive side of that
>> equation when my final day comes.
>
> If you believe that, and if your personal financial situation
> provides you with some discretionary income, then you should use
> some of that discretionary income to set up a system whereby
> everyone who wants to work and is able to do anything productive
> would be **GIVEN** a paying job whereby they are *ALLOWED* to work
> productively in exchange for earned-income.
>
> If everyone who can work and wants to work actually had a job,
> nobody would need to sue potential employers for discrimination.
First off I was referring to the OP with the comments that prompted
you to brag about your IQ and how it was MENSA level. You should have
joined as you are as dysfunctional in real society as the average
MENSA moron. Learn to understand what you read for starters if you
want to be believable and provide reasonable rebuttal. Not everything
everyone post is to or about you.
In article
rem642b@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> But the main point is that you're supposed to find some reason for
> your life here,
You mean there is a requirement to justify one's life? From whom?
--
dorayme
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:42 am, Harlan Messinger
>
>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>> making their website accessible.
>
> What is the incentive for them to do that? Other than they will get
> sued if they don't.
Civic-mindedness, economics (I swear, some people talk as though the
disabled don't spend money), good will, public relations.
As government-imposed burdens go, web accessibility is a truly small one.