Posted by 1001 Webs on 11/12/07 12:38

On Nov 12, 11:52 am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> <posting from alt.html>
>
> "1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194861559.991818.201540@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Either of two, you're not blind or you don't have any consideration
> > for real blind people.
>
> I let you out of my killfile for a few minutes and this is what rubbish
> appears.
Sure.
It suits you just right to start your reply with a lie.

> First of all, Chaddy is legally blind. That does not mean his eyes do not
> work at all, just that his sight is impared such that he is not legally
> obliged to actually see things. You should read up on the legislation in
> your own country and in ours (Australia) before casting such black and white
> assertions. Then again don't, you probably would not understand it anyway.
"An individual shall be considered to be blind for purposes of this
title if he has central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better
eye with the use of a correcting lens. An eye which is accompanied by
a limitation in the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of
the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees shall be
considered for purposes of the first sentence of this subsection as
having a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less. An individual shall
also be considered to be blind for purposes of this title if he is
blind as defined under a State plan approved under title X or XVI as
in effect for October 1972 and received aid under such plan (on the
basis of blindness) for December 1973, so long as he is continuously
blind as so defined."

Proof of that, please?

> Chaddy's visual acuity is not good but is enough to see his screen in
> general and to have a feel about what is hapenning on it.
A feeling that allows him to produce Flas presentations?
How strange ...

> It's like looking
> through some translucant showerscreen glass I believe (Is that right
> Chaddy?).
Proof of that, please Chaddy?

> Chaddy uses assistive technology to respond in this and many other
> newsgroups, one of the reasons his spelling is so bad :-) but we who know
Proof of that, please Chaddy?

> him do not care about this and even enjoy and joke about it, and I am sure
> Chaddy enjoys the odd such joke.
Sure.

> So, Chaddy is quite well (and mind you blindness, or rather visual
> imparment, or whatever Chaddy likes to call his, is not an illness)
The question is not "whatever Chaddy likes to call his" alleged
blindness.
The question is whether he's legally blind or whether he (and you) is
lying about his condition.
If he is lying, and I hope for his own good that he is not, he's
committing an even more serious CRIME than Jerry Sucker has.
And more despicable too, because disguising himself as a blind person
in order to get paid assignments is about the most shabby scam one can
think of.

In the best case scenario, assuming he really does suffer from some
kind of visual impairment, he shows no consideration whatsoever for
those who are in a worse condition than he is by producing non-
accessible content in a web-site that claims to "specialise in making
websites that are accessible to the widest range of people possible":
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/index.php
but then goes on to say that "you will need the Flash Player to *view*
the below content":
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/portfolio.php

And so, he's basically asking for compassion, while at the same time
denying accessibility to the people he claims to be helping.
Perhaps because he knows that he can't get any money out of those
people?

> able to
> produce web sites. I have followed his main web site for several years and
> find it to be an inspiration. We, who know him, offer critical (in the true
> sense of the word, constructructively critical) advice and he is pleased by
> this. Chaddy also often offers some rather critical advice to others,
> particularly from his visual viewpoint. For this we are gratefull and we
> learn from this. I am sure the recipients of that advice are also gratefull.
> It is good to hear what ones web site looks like, and operates like, to
> someone like Chaddy.
Sure.
I still have to read some of that "constructructively critical" advice
that it's not accompanied by some spam link that leads to one of his
pretended blind-made sites.

> I have not viewed any of his flash work, as I don't do flash, but I expect
> it to be a similar standard.
Then, in good sense, you should have, before attempting to cast an
opinion on whether he can be considered to be "legally blind".

> As to Spheric, aka Trevor, who used to go by another handle, I have seen him
> here as well for a long time, prior to his hiatus. While I do not interact
> much with him, other than to note his designs go by from time to time (with
> the odd critique from myself and, of course Chaddy) I respect him as a
> contributor to this newsgroup, and others.
I don't respect him at all.
I sincerely believe he's a real jerk.
He's trying to play Judge without even bothering to know the facts,
and that makes him a most distrustful person and one who should be
avoided by all means.

> Now, as to you.
>
> After having a bit of a run-in with Chaddy (which I still have not found,
> but I suspect it was just Chaddy stating (as we all do) that your sites
> suck) and having your balls chopped off my just about everybody who matters
> to the "regulars" in this group you start off a thread likening Chaddys work
> to that of how many children. I have just looked at some of these sites (for
> the first time) and I am willing to say that some of them look OK. Some of
> them are actually quite good, visually. Many however do not look OK. None of
> them are up to the standard required by this group and none of them, as far
> as I can tell, are up to the professional standard exhibited by Chaddy,
> Trevor, or any of the other "regulars" in this group, especially in regard
> to (funnily enough) accessibility.
The "standard required by this group" is by no means dictated by you,
who happen to lack any kind of standard values.

> <aside>
> I just visited every site you offered up.
I haven't offered any site by one.
Man, So much writing and nothing but lies, so far ...

> Every one of them fails in some way. Images of test. "Click here". Flags
> indicating countries. Fixed width. All of the things this and other
> newsgroups would frown upon.
> </aside>
Are you talking about flag images?
You know what, smartalec?
You confuse people.
You are not helpful at all to anyone.

The girl who just posted asking for recommendations on her website can
testify to that.
Your only goal is to appear as the smartest and most experienced
webmaster of usenet, by dumping LOTS of technical unrelated non-sense
technical crap.
You really are a waste of bandwidth.

> When Chaddys situation was revealed to you you called yourself a bloody
> arsehole and indicated you would not return.
Then I realized that either he was not blind at all or he doesn't have
any consideration for real blind people.
And he has a lot of explaining to do, specially if his unsupported
claim of "legal blindness" has landed him any paid job.

> You lied. You are still here. You are still attacking people whom you know
> exactly nothing about except from what you may discern from their posts
> here. Without knowing anything else about them.
Are you talking about yourself, pathetic spoofer?
It certainly seems so.

> You truly are a bloody arsehole. One usenet would be better off without.
Usenet is NOT yours.
You are not to tell anybody who should be using it or who shouldn't.
A clear indication of your misunderstanding of how Usenet and the
Internet in general, works.
People like you are the scum of this groups, but I understand you
provide some unwanted benefits. You make the real useful posters look
real good.

> Note: You will not get me into a Stukle pissing contest over this. Blather
> away. I am listening with beer in hand waiting for your next out of your
> arse statement.
So, on top of that you're a drunkard as well?
My God !
And you have the nerve to brag about it???
This is unbelievable !

> Have a good rest of your life.
I don't know about the rest of my Life, but you have certainly made my
day.

[Back to original message]