Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 1333802)

I am not sure how you know that, and I doubt it. However, the particular CNN program I alluded to is not all that relevant. The point is that today's speech to text software works reasonably well.

Like most people, I use speech-to-text software every day on my I-phone and it works-- not perfectly, but well enough to convey the substance of what is said. There is no justification for a nonprofit, like the Charter School, in order to satisfy the predilection of a small number of people, having to bear the cost of sign-language interpreters rather than to provide, the less-expensive, speech-to-text software and equipment.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1333863)

Not an I-Phone guy, but my phone does a great job speech-to-text. I think it likes my bride's voice better than mine and it even picks up the radio/tv if I have it going in the background. The technology is available.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1333847)

You presume/assume...incorrectly.

I moved here after this lawsuit was filed...and am not deaf.

I am however, an advocate of the ADA...for those not as fortunate as myself.
ir
I am also pretty amazed at how you made the leap from someone pointing out your error (which you still refused to acknowledge)....to hoping you had a target for your ire. :ohdear:

Originally Posted by CFrance (Post 1333884)

But that is part of the problem--it picks up background sounds. This would work very poorly in a classroom situation. Plus you would have more than one person's voice in a classroom, whereas some of the speech to text technology has to "get used" to a speaker's particular voice.

If this worked well for closed captioning (I worked in the editing end of that field), it would have taken over a long time ago, as offline closed captioning (where the show is captioned in advance and sent back to the network--called pop-up as opposed to real time captioning that you see on news broadcasts) is very expensive. It took a ton of lobbying to get captioning to be required by law. If it weren't, none of the networks would have ever started doing it.

Originally Posted by CFrance (Post 1333884)

But that is part of the problem--it picks up background sounds. This would work very poorly in a classroom situation. Plus you would have more than one person's voice in a classroom, whereas some of the speech to text technology has to "get used" to a speaker's particular voice.

If this worked well for closed captioning (I worked in the editing end of that field), it would have taken over a long time ago, as offline closed captioning (where the show is captioned in advance and sent back to the network--called pop-up as opposed to real time captioning that you see on news broadcasts) is very expensive. It took a ton of lobbying to get captioning to be required by law. If it weren't, none of the networks would have ever started doing it.

Originally Posted by Wavy Chips (Post 1333896)

2 things I wonder about:

1. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Act alone?

2. Would this lawsuit have ever been filed without its lead plaintiff?

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 1333770)

There is a lot of blame to go around.

What Schwarz and the plaintiffs did in bringing the lawsuit was reprehensible. They have been responsible for destroying a major asset of our community. Before starting the suit, they should have reached out to the community for support. This is a community of volunteers. Had Schwarz and the others publicly described their concerns, people could have stepped up to help or volunteer: sign-language interpreters, donations for speech-to-text equipment, etc.

Furthermore, modern speech-to-text software and equipment clearly works well enough in this day and age to constitute "reasonable accommodation". I recently watched, using closed captions, a live panel discussion among six participants on CNN. While not perfect, the captions clearly allowed the viewer to follow the substance of the discussion. Keep in mind also that sign-language "interpreters" interpret, they don't translate. That is, the are conveying the substance of what is being said.

In fact, it seems clear that it is just a matter of time before sign-language interpreters go the way of Latin interpreters. A problem seems to be intransigence on the part of the plaintiffs, who are part of a deaf culture that is centered on sign language and supports a commercial sign-language industry. It does not seem that members of that culture should expect the public to pay for their resistance to technological change.

On the other hand, the Developer, who controls both the defendants in the case, suppressed all news of the litigation for years-- apparently to avoid bad publicity. Then, without any public discussion or pleas for the kind of community input and involvement described above, he abruptly pulled the rug out from under us by closing down the Lifelong Learning College-- that at a point in time when the defendants were winning the lawsuit.

What prompted him to do this? School systems throughout the country run adult ed programs like the Lifelong Learning College despite the ADA and lawsuits like this one. The details underlying his decision are unclear, and the two articles in the Developer-controlled Daily Sun fail to shine much light on the subject, other than launching a barrage of criticisms (at least some of which appears to be well deserved) at the plaintiffs.

Originally Posted by Bonnevie (Post 1331141)

friend who belongs to POA sent me the following. the appeal is to be able to go after the lifestyle groups.

However, the undisputed facts establish that while the Districts facilitate both the formation and operation of the RLGs, the RLGs programs, activities, and events are planned, controlled, and led by private residents of The Villages, and actions taken on behalf of the RLGs are not actions of the Districts. Thus, they are not required to meet ADA requirements. However, a challenge to this Judge’s Opinion is on the docket in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Atlanta, Ga.) for December 12, 2016. The POA, along with District Staff and District Counsel, are confident that they are on sound ground and that the Court will uphold the original finding, but we will not know for sure until the Appeals Court makes its ruling. We have no time line as to when the Court decision will be issued.

Originally Posted by villagetinker (Post 1334544)

Any word on what happened?

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 1334602)

Didn't you read about it in the Daily Sun today?

Oh, I forgot. The developer controls tthe Daily Sun, and apparently because the developer didn't want the adverse publicity, the Daily Sun suppressed all news of the story for years. This is the major story directly affecting Villagers today. But unless the Daily Sun is shamed into acting like a real newspaper, we still will probably not get any details from it.

While the plaintiffs deserve the lion's share of the blame for the shutdown because of their frivolous lawsuit, it was the developer who made the actual decision to shut down the college and who suppressed news of the controversy for years.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 1334602)

Didn't you read about it in the Daily Sun today?

Oh, I forgot. The developer controls tthe Daily Sun, and apparently because the developer didn't want the adverse publicity, the Daily Sun suppressed all news of the story for years. This is the major story directly affecting Villagers today. But unless the Daily Sun is shamed into acting like a real newspaper, we still will probably not get any details from it.
QUOTE]

I absolutely disagree.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 1334697)

On what basis?

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 1334602)

Didn't you read about it in the Daily Sun today?

Oh, I forgot. The developer controls tthe Daily Sun, and apparently because the developer didn't want the adverse publicity, the Daily Sun suppressed all news of the story for years. This is the major story directly affecting Villagers today. But unless the Daily Sun is shamed into acting like a real newspaper, we still will probably not get any details from it.

While the plaintiffs deserve the lion's share of the blame for the shutdown because of their frivolous lawsuit, it was the developer who made the actual decision to shut down the college and who suppressed news of the controversy for years.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1334702)

I agree with you there. This is basically about $$$$ from selling houses and marketing of the idea of the Villages.

You wonder how much the founder of the Villages Harold Schwartz would like this mess. Villages' founder dies at 93 - News - Ocala.com - Ocala, FL

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1334742)

The Founder, Harold Schwartz sold modular homes. He was a SALESMAN. It is o.k. to sell things and to make money. Even make a lot of money. Within the law. AND in the process create a wonderful place where older people can have an interesting and happy life.

The Lifelong Learning College closed because it was challenged to do the things the American Disability Act required it to do and it would have to raise the tuition sky high to comply.

There is a price for everything and they weren't willing to pay. I would have done the same thing if it were MY call. We can't have everything we want in this life. Sometimes the price is too high.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1334769)

That does not sound like a correct version. It would not have been too costly to meet the demands of the ADA as far as reasonable accommodations are concerned for the Lifelong Learning College and translators for the deaf. The reasonable part comes into play when you are talking about which classed needed translators. They should be a translator if a deaf person needs one for some class but this could have been any variety of things. It would depend on what kind of class this was. And you could write out for instance what was going to be in the lecture and ask for volunteers who knew sign language from the community. The developer did not approach this as a problem that could be solved by this community working together on it. Instead it was a competition between lawyers and law firms. Lawyers should be the last option people try; and not the first.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1334769)

.....And you could write out for instance what was going to be in the lecture and ask for volunteers who knew sign language from the community. The developer did not approach this as a problem that could be solved by this community working togethe...

Originally Posted by dirtbanker (Post 1334868)

The plantiffs insisted that only certified translators would be provided.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Oregon (Post 1335156)

I am retiring this summer and have planned to move to The Villages for several years. However, the LLC was always a very important part of the reason I was moving there. Have there been any new developments? Do you think that this issue will be resolved and they will reopen?

Originally Posted by Oregon (Post 1335156)

I am retiring this summer and have planned to move to The Villages for several years. However, the LLC was always a very important part of the reason I was moving there. Have there been any new developments? Do you think that this issue will be resolved and they will reopen?

Originally Posted by Oregon (Post 1335156)

I am retiring this summer and have planned to move to The Villages for several years. However, the LLC was always a very important part of the reason I was moving there. Have there been any new developments? Do you think that this issue will be resolved and they will reopen?

Originally Posted by Buckeye Bob (Post 1335037)

The appeal hearing was supposed to take place in Atlanta yesterday. Does anyone know what the 32 plaintiffs were appealing?

Originally Posted by Oregon (Post 1335156)

I am retiring this summer and have planned to move to The Villages for several years. However, the LLC was always a very important part of the reason I was moving there. Have there been any new developments? Do you think that this issue will be resolved and they will reopen?

Originally Posted by jamblu (Post 1335210)

Sounds like mismanagement on LC part. Litigation 8 years? That had to be a whole lot more expensive than whatever was needed for ADA. And not recognizing the value of their contributions to the villages without making the issue public to hear alternate resolutions? ..........Stupid

Originally Posted by jamblu (Post 1335210)

Sounds like mismanagement on LC part. Litigation 8 years? That had to be a whole lot more expensive than whatever was needed for ADA. And not recognizing the value of their contributions to the villages without making the issue public to hear alternate resolutions? ..........Stupid

Originally Posted by jamblu (Post 1335210)

Sounds like mismanagement on LC part. Litigation 8 years? That had to be a whole lot more expensive than whatever was needed for ADA. And not recognizing the value of their contributions to the villages without making the issue public to hear alternate resolutions? ..........Stupid

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1335284)

If I'm not mistaken, the LLLC has offered pretty much every accommodation that has been requested and still it was not enough. These people are after money. And if they break down and pay them, it will leave The Villages open to all kinds of nuisance suits in the future.
I think that it's great that they took a stand.