[AERNet] Accessible Currency Debate

[Ike Presley]

Hi All,
 
I've been reading a good bit about the issue of accessible currency. It
seems that there are good points on both sides. At times the information
is somewhat contradictory so I guess it depends on whose facts you
believe. In fact, I have not personally made up my mind on the issue.
I'd still like some more facts but I'm not sure if that data will become
available.
 
For those of you who are interested read on. If not, hit the delete
button. I would like to call your attention to 3 articles that I found
very helpful in addressing this issue. One is pro, one is con, and the
final one is also somewhat con, but offers and interesting option. Since
it seems that we talk about the pros and cons of an issue, I'll copy the
pro article first. However, that doesn't mean that I totally agree with
it or that in any way does my employer endorse it. I'm not certain that
my employer has taken a definite stand on the issue, as an organization,
I mean. Anyway, hopefully I want get into too much trouble for simply
trying to provide information to our field about an issue.
 
www.acb.org/magazine/2007/bf022007-2.html

A MILESTONE FOR MONEY AND MEANINGFUL ACCESS 
by Melanie Brunson 


Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006 was a historic day for ACB. On that day, U.S.
District Judge James Robertson issued his decision in ACB's pending case
against the United States Treasury Department. Judge Robertson found
that the Department of the Treasury is violating federal law by failing
to design, produce and issue paper currency that is readily
distinguishable by people who are blind or visually impaired. Shortly
after this decision was announced, the government announced its
intention to appeal. As I write, we are awaiting a decision by the
District of Columbia Circuit Court as to whether it will hear the
government's appeal. 

In the meantime, as many of you know, Judge Robertson's decision has
caused quite a stir! Discussion of the case has been widespread in both
radio and television programs, as well as the print media. Interest in
the case has not been limited to the U.S. media. Both Chris Gray and I
were interviewed by reporters from the BBC shortly after the decision
was announced and a film crew from French television visited the ACB
office. While I was in Tokyo, Japan to attend a conference last month, I
was informed that one of the conference organizers had just submitted an
article on the American court decision to a Japanese publication for
people with disabilities. 

We believe that continued public discussion of the accessibility of U.S.
currency is beneficial and we hope that public discourse on the subject
will continue. In an effort to facilitate that discussion and provide
answers to some of the questions that have been raised thus far, ACB's
Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs, Day Al-Mohamed, put
together a fact sheet entitled Accessible Paper Currency -- Myth vs.
Fact. I thought it would be helpful to readers of "The Braille Forum" to
have the information in this fact sheet for their own reference, so,
with Day's permission, I will include it here. Please read on and, if
you still have questions after you finish, feel free to contact either
Day or me. We will keep you posted as this case develops. 

Following this article, you will find a short survey on access to paper
currency. We would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to
answer the questions in our brief survey and send them, in any format,
to the ACB national office. We value your input on this important issue.
Now, here's some additional information for your consideration. 

Accessible Paper Currency -- Myth vs. Fact TRUE OR FALSE? 

Making paper currency accessible to the blind and visually impaired is
an extreme measure and an unheard-of accommodation. 

FALSE. Almost 200 countries issuing paper currency have made their
currency accessible using various methods, leaving the United States as
the only nation that prints bills that are identical in size and color
in all their denominations. These include nations and groups with larger
populations and currency printing needs such as Canada and the European
Union, but also smaller countries such as Barbados, Namibia and Uruguay.


TRUE OR FALSE? 

Making paper currency accessible isn't really necessary because it only
affects a small group of people. 

FALSE. Cataracts, which result in cloudy or blurred vision, affect 20.5
million people in the United States today, but that number will rise to
30 million in 2020. Diabetes as a result of obesity is an increasing
issue for millions of Americans, and for 5.3 million of them, diabetic
retinopathy will cause vision loss. For seniors, age-related macular
degeneration and glaucoma will affect 1.6 million and 2.2 million people
respectively, and those numbers are expected to grow. What those
statistics mean is that roughly 1 in 250 people will have some sort of
visual impairment by 2020. 

In addition, making paper currency accessible will impact a much larger
group of individuals than just those who are blind and visually
impaired. The increased ease in differentiating money will work to the
benefit of seniors, individuals with cognitive disabilities and even
people without disabilities in environments where there is low lighting
such as restaurants, taxicabs, and bars. 

Curb cuts were created for individuals who use wheelchairs, yet
non-disabled pedestrians such as people with strollers, wheeled luggage
and moving dollies have significantly benefited and make regular use of
curb cuts. Closed captioning was initially thought of as an imposition
forced on the public by the deaf community, and yet it is now widely
used in places such as airports, hospitals, bars and gyms. Creating an
additional means of identifying paper currency has the potential to be
just as beneficial to society as a whole. 

TRUE OR FALSE? 

Making paper currency accessible makes it easier to counterfeit U.S.
money. 

FALSE. The advent of computers, scanners and printers and other even
newer technology has made counterfeiting even easier. However, tactile
changes, such as a number of those proposed and utilized by other
nations as a part of their accessible currency initiatives, also make it
more difficult to counterfeit currency. 

TRUE OR FALSE? 

Making paper currency accessible is too expensive. 

FALSE. There are several ways to alter paper currency to make it
accessible, such as varying sizes, raised symbols, intaglio, punched
holes or even rounded edges, each of which would have a different cost
estimate; therefore, there is some question as to the accuracy of any
estimates proposed at this time. 

In addition, even if one were to accept the figures put forward by the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, then in the context of the amount
spent annually, accessibility alterations would be less than 5 percent
of their cost, perhaps even less if changes were made over time.
Considering that U.S. currency is redesigned every few years, including
accessibility in the next design change would not necessarily increase
the cost significantly. It is important to remember that the latest
redesign is already under way -- new $10 bills, with a new $5 bill due
to come out in 2008. 

TRUE OR FALSE? 

Making paper currency accessible will be exorbitantly expensive to the
vending machine industry. 

FALSE. There are a variety of methods to making paper currency
identifiable that have been successfully implemented abroad. No specific
change has been determined at this time and the American Council of the
Blind does not endorse any single method, so it is impossible to
determine how much costs and alterations to vending, ticketing or other
machines will be. In addition, currently, there are no suggested changes
to the $1 bill, which is the most commonly used bill in the industry and
accounts for 50 percent of the bills minted by the Bureau of Engraving
and Printing. 

TRUE OR FALSE? 

Portable note-reading devices are a better alternative to changing
currency. 

FALSE. The use of a special machine that people who are blind and
visually impaired would be required to use or possess is impractical and
inefficient. Individuals would have to carry the machine with them
everywhere. The current cost of such portable readers is around $300 per
machine and they have been shown not to work well with worn, crumpled or
dirty bills. Making sure the bill is in the correct orientation for the
reading device can be difficult to do without vision and time-consuming.
In addition, such readers are relatively slow at identifying bills;
doing so one bill at a time would not be welcome in a busy line. And
there is the question of the ability of such machines to continue to be
effective over time for new currency design upgrades. Plus, the machines
themselves wear out and break down. 

Also of concern is the fact that such portable devices announce the
denomination out loud and require the identification of each bill
singly, forcing a blind individual to more openly handle their money to
identify it, a safety issue in today's crowded urban areas. Creating a
requirement for a special note-reading device becomes the development of
technology as a substitute for access instead of a means to achieve
access. But perhaps just as important, requiring people who are blind
and visually impaired to use a special note-reading device rather than
making the currency itself accessible means that the potential benefit
is denied to the larger population who would benefit from alternate
access to paper currency such as seniors, individuals with cognitive
disabilities, non-English-speaking immigrants, non-disabled individuals
in low light situations and even blind or visually impaired tourists. 

 

www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm07/bm0702/bm070202.htm

Is the Failure to Produce Tactile Currency 
Really a Matter of Discrimination?

by Marc Maurer

 Braille money has been a minor topic of discussion among blind people
for as long as I can remember. The way blind people handle coinage and
bills was the subject of a lesson (an informal one, as I remember it)
that I received during my early grade school years. Coins are not
difficult to distinguish from one another tactilely. The bills that form
the majority of currency present a somewhat greater challenge, but it is
largely a manageable one. Stories abound regarding blind people who
insist that they be paid only in one-dollar bills, but the vast majority
of blind people receive, manage, disburse, and use bills of higher
denominations as a matter of routine. 

Most blind people have devised a system for keeping track of paper
currency--folding different denominations different ways, separating
different denominations into different pockets or different parts of a
wallet or purse, or (in rare instances) creating tactile identification
marks on bills of different denominations. In a customary transaction
involving paper currency, a blind person transferring a bill identifies
the denomination before releasing it to the person receiving it. In
accepting paper currency, a blind person ordinarily asks that the bills
be identified as they are received. Blind merchants ask that the bills
they receive be identified publicly. In some instances blind merchants
employ a paper money identifier to verify the denomination of a bill.
However, in most cases the verbal exchange with the sighted person
transferring the bill is sufficient for identification. 

>From time to time somebody gets the bright idea to ask the Congress to
create Braille money. The National Federation of the Blind has been
asked for its opinion regarding the creation of Braille money on many
occasions. The response to this request for information usually includes
these elements: 

1) Printing Braille on money has been tested. The Braille wears out with
extreme rapidity. Money identified with Braille becomes unusable in its
tactile form after only a very short time in circulation. 

2) Paper currency of different sizes or shapes could be made that would
be identifiable by touch. However, unless the person managing the
currency has the different sized or shaped bills to compare, it is
frequently difficult to tell what denominations are present. The cost of
modifying the currency management technology to accept bills of
different sizes or shapes is high for the minimal benefit that would
result. 

3) We believe that many legal changes are essential to ensure the right
of the blind to full participation in society. Even if a change in the
nature of the paper currency is desirable, it is not of sufficient
importance to warrant our attention and the attention of Congress. Other
things should be done first. Because the management of paper currency is
well within the capacity of the blind, changing the currency to gain a
minor convenience is not justified. For these reasons during the nearly
forty years that I have participated in the National Federation of the
Blind, we as an organization have consistently decided not to put
substantial effort into changing the paper currency. 
In 1994 at the convention of the National Federation of the Blind held
in Detroit, Michigan, the members of the Federation discussed changes in
the currency. Our general approach to the currency was set forth in
Resolution 94-07. That resolution says:

WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Treasury is examining
alternatives to the present currency for the purposes of making
counterfeiting more difficult and for making currency more compatible
with modern technology; and 

WHEREAS, revisions to the present currency may include variations in
color, raised markings, bar coding, or other electronically readable
formats; and 

WHEREAS, it is a widespread misconception that blind people cannot
handle their own money because they cannot see it; and 

WHEREAS, it is beyond dispute that blind people can, in fact, handle
their own money; however, bills which can be identified by other than
conventional print could be more convenient for everyone, may be a
necessity to safeguard against counterfeiting, and may be desirable to
take the best advantage of evolving technology: Now, therefore, 

BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention
assembled this seventh day of July, 1994, in the City of Detroit,
Michigan, that this organization express the interest of blind people in
the discussion of a modernized form of currency so that any changes
which may eventually be made will include methods of identifying money
by other than strictly visual means; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Federation, notwithstanding its
expressed interest in the ultimate decisions on currency changes, do all
in its power correctly to inform the public that blind people can and do
successfully handle money in its present form.

In the spring of 2002 the American Council of the Blind and certain
individuals sued the Treasury of the United States and others on the
grounds that the paper currency of our country was not tactilely
identifiable by blind individuals and that the failure of the Treasury
to produce such currency constituted discrimination against the blind.
Inasmuch as most of us who are blind have been using paper currency
without major difficulty, the National Federation of the Blind thought
the lawsuit was primarily an effort on the part of the American Council
of the Blind (ACB) to gain publicity. Many thoughtful leaders of the
blind felt that the ACB's publicity stunt was damaging to the blind not
only because it focused attention on a putative problem that did not
exist but also that it would present the capacity of the blind in a
false and misleading manner. If blind people are incapable of managing
paper currency, how devastating is the limitation of blindness? We felt
that this kind of presentation would lead to the assertion that blind
people were incapable of participation in commerce without substantial
alteration of the documents or papers involved in financial
transactions. To give only one example, if a check is not tactilely
identifiable, is the signature of a blind person upon it valid? The
answer to the question might be that the signature is not. If this were
to become the result of the argument that the paper currency
discriminates against the blind, the effect upon blind people would be
devastating indeed. We in the National Federation of the Blind have
fought for the proposition that the signature of a blind person is valid
upon such documents, whether they are tactilely identifiable or not. To
assert anything else would be to challenge the right of blind people to
engage in the commerce of the world. 

Fundamental to the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind is
the belief that blind people can operate effectively within our society
as it currently exists with only minor modifications of the tools used
for participation in that society. How much alteration in the tools of
participation is needed for our effective participation? This question
is at the heart of the argument about creating a tactile currency.
Tactile currency would be convenient and beneficial to the blind.
However, it would cost a great deal to create it and even more to
implement its use. The most frequently suggested method for creating a
tactilely identifiable currency is to print bills of different sizes for
different denominations. If this method of producing currency were to be
adopted, the machines used to manage currency would require alteration.
The cash registers employed throughout the country would need modified
drawers. This is only the beginning of the cost. The bank machines, the
vending machines, the currency-counting machines, and other
paper-currency-managing tools would require alteration. If we who are
blind expect our government, our businesses, and our citizenry to meet
these costs, the benefit must be sufficiently large to justify the
demand. What we said about the lawsuit brought against the Treasury was,
"Show us a problem that exists. Then we'll join in urging that it be
solved." 

Of course the currency contains identifiable visual markings for the
sighted. Why could it not also contain tactilely identifiable markings
for the blind? Undoubtedly such currency could be manufactured. However,
if no need for it has been demonstrated, the decision to produce such
currency is a matter for policy determination by the government rather
than a requirement imposed by law. 

On November 28, 2006, the Federal District Court for the District of
Columbia issued a Memorandum Order declaring that the Treasury of the
United States discriminates against the blind when it fails to issue
tactilely identifiable currency. In this decision, the court said, "Most
people with low vision, and all blind people, are incapable of looking
at American currency and distinguishing one denomination from another.
In order to know whether the bill in her hand is worth $5 or $50, a
blind person must ask someone else for help or use a machine that can
identify the denomination and speak it out loud." Although the court
decision is many pages in length, this passage is at the heart of the
ruling. The paper money of the United States is not tactilely
identifiable. Blind people cannot identify the paper money without the
help of a sighted person or of a machine. The government could have
produced tactilely identifiable money. The cost to do so is small when
compared to expenditures for creating a national currency system.
Consequently the court ruled that discrimination has occurred and that
the government is required to adopt a plan to issue currency that the
blind can identify without help. 

In 2002, shortly after the lawsuit had been initiated, the National
Federation of the Blind considered the assertion of discrimination. As a
result of the discussion, the Federation adopted Resolution 2002-25.
This resolution states:

WHEREAS, on May 2, 2002, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and two
individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the
Treasury of the United States and the treasurer of the United States
alleging that the federal government is in violation of Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, by
issuing all U.S. currency in an identical size, color, and texture,
which renders various denominations indistinguishable by touch, alleging
that the blind are thus largely excluded from enjoying the benefits of
monetary transactions and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief by
requiring the Department of the Treasury to implement design changes in
the currency to make the various denominations distinguishable by touch
and color; and

WHEREAS, this lawsuit is based on a false and misleading assumption that
the inability to distinguish banknote denominations by touch largely
excludes the blind from participating in commerce and other ordinary
activities of life; and

WHEREAS, the theory of this suit is disproved by the lives of tens of
thousands of blind persons who live normal lives and participate in
commerce every day without difficulty; and

WHEREAS, more than having difficulty with money, blind people are apt to
suffer great harm from the attendant publicity surrounding this suit,
fostering and reinforcing the notion that the blind cannot easily handle
currency as it now exists and, for example, needlessly creating an
albatross around the neck of any blind person seeking employment in any
position involving handling money; and

WHEREAS, to the extent that currency identification is truly a problem
for individual blind people, various technological devices capable of
identifying banknotes and audibly announcing their denomination are
available for sale, and in fact giving every blind person in the country
such a device would be simpler and cheaper than re-engineering the
nation's cash-handling capacity; and

WHEREAS, in view of its false premise and lack of merit, there is little
likelihood that the relief sought by this lawsuit will ever be granted,
thus using the blind in a publicity stunt and showing little regard for
the genuine needs and concerns of blind people; and

WHEREAS, more than the adverse publicity resulting from the filing of
this suit itself, there is a substantial risk of a ruling that could
nullify the potential benefits of Section 504 by narrowing its scope and
coverage or the law altogether, as has happened with other recent court
decisions in the area of disability: Now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention
assembled this ninth day of July, 2002, in the City of Louisville,
Kentucky, that this organization take all appropriate and legally
available steps to advise the court that the failure to have U.S.
currency issued as sought by the plaintiffs in this suit is not an act
of discrimination against the blind and in such a fashion that the
accompanying ruling does not harm current and future efforts to achieve
genuinely needed and desirable accommodations for the blind; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization take steps to counter the
adverse effects of the harmful publicity arising from this particular
lawsuit and renew efforts to educate the public that the blind can
participate in commerce on equal terms and fully enjoy the benefits of
U.S. currency as it now exists.

What is the harm that this ruling of the federal court is intended to
stop? Blind people use currency-most of the time without problem and
even without much conscious worry. Can blind people be defrauded? Of
course we can. The opinion of the court says, "Unable to identify the
value of paper money without help from others, blind and low-vision
individuals are always at risk of being cheated." What the opinion of
the court does not say is that sighted people who can identify currency
are themselves always at risk of being cheated. The assumption of the
judge who wrote the opinion is that the inability to see increases the
risk. Is this true, or is it simply an assumption? How often does
cheating of the blind occur? Has anyone demonstrated that the blind are
cheated more often than the sighted? If this demonstration has not been
made, what is the basis for declaring that discrimination exists? 

The blind people with whom I have discussed the matter believe that
cheating is rare. Comments to me indicate that blind people are cheated
no more often than sighted people are. However, although the judge did
not have evidence of a pattern of cheating, he did express an opinion.
He said, "The frequency of such acts against blind and low-vision
individuals [acts of cheating] is impossible to measure because victims
may not know that they have been deceived unless someone tells them."
This statement indicates the judge's fundamental misunderstanding of
blind people. 

Blind people are not so lacking in discernment that we don't eventually
discover when we have been defrauded. If somebody were to defraud me of
my money, sooner or later I would notice. Part of the process of
managing money is having a sense of how much there is. When the money is
suddenly gone, it is not hard for me to know that it has disappeared.
For the judge to assert that I wouldn't notice when my money is gone is
an indication of the capacity he attributes to me as a blind person.
Inasmuch as the judge has admitted that the record in the case does not
contain evidence of a pattern of cheating, the decision he makes is
based upon fear--his fear of the potential for fraud even though no
evidence of it exists. Because blind people might be defrauded, the
judge asserts that we face the inability to participate in the program
of the United States which prints and distributes currency, and he
determines that our inability to participate results from the failure of
the Treasury to produce tactilely identifiable money. This failure, he
says, is discrimination. The decision is based on speculation and
emotionalism--not fact. 

Shortly after the issuance of the decision by the federal judge, I
submitted a guest editorial to the New York Times for consideration,
which was printed on December 18, 2006. It says:

In a ruling in a lawsuit last month, Judge James Robertson of Federal
District Court said that United States currency discriminates against
blind people because bills are all the same size and cannot be
distinguished by touch. His decision was applauded by some advocates for
the blind, including the American Council of the Blind, which brought
the lawsuit. But as president of the National Federation of the Blind,
the nation's oldest and largest organization of the blind, I believe
that Judge Robertson's ruling is wrong.

Discrimination occurs when the blind are barred from enjoying benefits,
goods, or services. This definition of discrimination is what most
people understand the word to mean. If a landlord refuses to rent an
apartment to someone because of race, color, creed, or disability, then
discrimination occurs. Sometimes people with disabilities are barred
from certain facilities or services because of the way they are
designed. A person in a wheelchair cannot climb the steps of a public
building; if the building does not have a wheelchair ramp, that person
is prevented from entering it. In another example, my group is suing the
Target Corporation because the company's Web site doesn't accommodate
the special text-reading software that the blind use to surf the
Internet. In both cases a person with a disability is kept out of a
public place or denied use of a service, just as African Americans were
not welcome at whites-only lunch counters.

But while blind people cannot identify paper currency by touch, that
does not prevent us from spending money. When we hand merchants our
money, they take it and provide us with the goods or services we have
paid for, no questions asked. People with whom we transact business
provide us with correct change if needed, and we then organize the money
in a manner that allows us to identify it in the future. We transact
business in this way every day. 

There is no evidence that the blind are shortchanged more often than the
sighted; if a question does arise about a particular transaction, it is
the responsibility of the blind person to sort out the matter.
Identifying money by feel, as the blind are often able to do in many
other countries, may be more convenient, but inconvenience is not the
same thing as discrimination.

While it is crucial that minorities have a voice in society, it is also
the responsibility of every minority group to use that voice wisely and
not to cry "discrimination" when no discrimination has occurred. The
blind of America will fight discrimination wherever we find it, but we
achieve nothing by falsely portraying ourselves as victims and engaging
in frivolous litigation.

Part of the nuisance of blindness is managing printed documents. Until
print disappears (which I suspect will not be soon), blind people will
have to find a way to read it. Print is everywhere, and getting at the
information it represents is one of the elements of the problem that
blind people have. When methods for managing the information that is
presented visually have been devised, claiming discrimination to alter
the printed matter is unreasonable. This is true even if it would be
desirable to create tactile representations of the print. 

Charging the government, business owners, or individuals with violation
of the law is a serious matter. It should not be done unless there is
serious harm to redress. Built into consideration of discrimination
based on disability is the notion of reasonable accommodation. Sometimes
it is essential that print be modified for blind people to participate
in a program. Unless the modification alters the nature of the program,
the change is required. Reasonable accommodations are demanded by law
unless they would cause an undue burden to the entity making them.
Consideration of discrimination, therefore, incorporates the notion that
an alteration in a program or activity must provide sufficient benefit
to be worth the cost. If the cost is great and the benefit is small, no
discrimination exists. In this case no demonstration of urgent need has
been made. Consequently, the decision of the court is unsupported

 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031602113
.html
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR20070
31602113.html> 

Washington Post, USA

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Letter: Time to Fold the Dollar

By THOMAS E. McMAHON

Saturday, March 17, 2007; Page A18

The headline on Gordon Legge's March 10 letter, "U.S. Dollars: Feel the
Difference," pointed to the solution to the problem our nation's 900,000
blind and visually impaired residents face in distinguishing among
denominations of paper money. Replace the dollar bills with coins.

Half of all paper money in circulation is dollar bills. Hence, half of
the problem blind people encounter recognizing money would be solved by
phasing out the dollar bill and phasing in the presidential dollar coins
now being issued. Mr. Legge, who is visually impaired, noted that coins
are easier for the blind to use because of their two tactile features:
variations in size and in edge.

He cited the euro currency's tactile features that make Europe's money
more user-friendly for the blind. But he failed to mention the most
important feature -- the euro, now worth about $1.30, is a coin, not a
note.

Because dollar bills circulate for about 20 months, and dollar coins
last more than 20 years, the federal government would save at least $600
million a year in paper and ink costs by substituting coins for bills.

These savings would yield more than twice the amount needed to provide
every legally blind person in the country with a lightweight, hand-held,
reliable currency reader. Currency readers would enable blind people to
conduct transactions quickly and confidently.

If Mr. Legge's solution -- the redesign of U.S. currency -- is adopted,
bill acceptors in at least 1.5 million food and beverage vending
machines, most of which are already capable of accepting dollar coins,
will have to be retooled or replaced at a cost of between $150 million
and $500 million.

THOMAS E. McMAHON

Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel

National Automatic Merchandising Association

Herndon

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aerbvi.org/pipermail/aernet_lists.aerbvi.org/attachments/20070320/67655a6b/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 53243 bytes
Desc: MM.gif
Url : http://lists.aerbvi.org/pipermail/aernet_lists.aerbvi.org/attachments/20070320/67655a6b/attachment.gif