RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

This sounds silly, of course. But, I don't quite understand.

I think I understand the first part where you write, 
"the provisions provided by Red Hat were of my own choosing." I would interpret this to mean something like, "you choose to take this test, so you choose what we offer
according to the terms we offer it." Circular and silly, of course. 

But, about the alternative arrangements, what was the alternative? I don't quite follow this. It seems there was no alternative, just the one option which perhaps RH
was saying put you at a disadvantage. Namely, that whoever wanted this signature realized you would have a tougher time than other candidates. But, is there some
meaning I'm missing about an "alternative?"

Aaron Howell writes:
> From: Aaron Howell <aaron at kitten.net.au>
> 
> Oh, and one more thing,
> They made me sign an agreement that
> "the provisions provided by Redhat were of my own chosing,
> and that it was RedHat's opinion that I may be putting myself at a disadvantage by choosing to use such alternative arrangements."
> That is, they gave me absolutely no choice, then made me agree that it was what I'd wanted all along.
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > Luke Davis writes:
> > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis at shellworld.net>
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > 
> > False.
> > 
> > 
> > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision. 
> > 
> > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
> > 
> > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > decision to deny?" Bull..
> > 
> > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> > Hardly.
> > 
> > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> > where this deliberate decision was reached? 
> > 
> > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> > the plural. So, what else
> > > >
> > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > >  listed."
> > > >
> > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > > 
> > > Regarding:
> > > 
> > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes.  Oh, well...
> > > 
> > > Is this false?  Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > 
> > -- 
> > 	
> > 				Janina Sajka, Director
> > 				Technology Research and Development
> > 				Governmental Relations Group
> > 				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> > 
> > Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175