What a load of rubbish, I don’t need any cover if I want to make fun of people in wheelchairs. Hell, yesterday I met a guy in a wheelchair trying to roll through a local forest trail and I spent a fun hour throwing branches in his path and laughing at his frustration.
Actually, come to think of it, if I laugh at a disabled person in a forest and there is nobody there to see it, did it actually happen?
The funny thing about you, ya big weenie, is that people say that you come into threads “white knighting”. But every time I think of a knight I think of a big bold bastard roaring “RIDE FORTH” and surging forward, whereas you are a useless little scroat scared to leave your bedroom in case you meet a woman.
I honestly am starting to think Jamie isn’t such a bad guy. Part of his problem is communication. He is a shitty writer and it leads to misunderstandings. Just a thought.
In fairness, a lot of people here could stand to improve both writing and reading skills, and to grant to others, in cases of less-than-crystal clarity, the consideration that apparent discrepancies, faults and disagreements might be the result of communication failure. There are many conclusions leaped to, and intentions imputed, that aren’t strictly supported in the text.
But Jamie has outright changed his story in some cases. For example in his letter to the DOJ he told us that the problem was that he was not able to use the machine, some time later he said that the problem was that he could not physically get to the machine due to barriers in the way of it.
I know there have been other cases and I know I’m not the only one to point them out. There’s a difference between being bad at getting your point across and making things up as you go along.
Did the first post say why he couldn’t use the machine? Do the circumstances described in the second not, indeed, prevent him from using it?
Yes. And there’s a difference between making things up as you go along and making “incomplete” posts that are misinterpreted by people eager to pile on to you.
I’m not defending Jamie here per se. I’m just saying that unfair criticism detracts from fair criticism. And while I haven’t checked the particular posts you allude to there, I know there’s been some unfair going on.
Typical lat-pulldown machines don’t work with wheel chairs, that was his problem. He mentioned over and over that under ADA law the health club had to get one that works with a wheel chair. He was told over and over that ADA law, does not require them to get one. Over and over he claimed that they do. Several times I quoted different aspects of the ADA law that showed that they do not have to get one. One part in particular is that, under ADA law, the health club only has to provide him with the ability to physically get to the various machines, not that he actually has to be able to use them.
He argued this point as well. We went back and forth on that for a while and eventually that argument sort of fizzled out.
Anyways, in another thread he brought it up again. Again I told him the health club “must remove architectural barriers to elements” but it says nothing about providing him with machines he can use so long as he can physically get to them. His response was “Yes, the equipment they have now does have architechtural barriers that make accessing (using) it impossible for the disabled.”
This was the FIRST AND ONLY time he made any mention of not being able to get to a machine.
Not to get sucked into the pile-on, but I used to work out with a guy who did wheelchair marathons, and he could and did use a standard lat pulldown machine. He would get himself onto the machine, and either strap himself in or I stood behind him and held him in place with my hands on his shoulders. It was a little awkward, but not nearly as awkward as wheel chair pull ups that require two people to catch you and the chair.
I kind of wondered about that myself, but not knowing the extent of his abilities I’m certainly not going to comment on how easy or difficult it would be for him to get from his chair into the machine. I’m more then willing to accept him when he says he can’t use them.
But that just goes to prove something. The person YOU worked with can use a standard lat machine, Jamie can’t. Everyone is different and they can’t possibly serve everyone with every disability, that’s exactly why the law is written the way it is (provide access to, not the ability to use).
Here’s a question. Suppose they get the machine Jamie wants and someone else with a different disability can’t use it but still wants to work out their lats. So they go home, do some research, find a machine that will and work and demand the club purchases it… Jamie, do you think the gym should be required to purchase a third lat machine for this person that can’t use the standard one or the one that they got for you?
If you feel they should, I’d like to know why, it sets an interesting (and expensive) precedent.
If you feel they shouldn’t, why do you think they should be required to get the one you want?
My understanding is that he doesn’t want a new machine, he wants to be allowed to use the current machine in a way it is not designed for. The method he has described involves two people lifting him up to it, then he does pullups and then drops back down on his own. Considering how litigious our society is in general, and him in particular, I am completely unsurprised that a business would not want him doing anything unspecified by the equipment manufacturer. If he were to continue using the machine in this way, and the managers knew about it, they would be risking a lawsuit if he got injured.
As far as refusing his further business, the general level of belligerence he seems to project increases the likelihood of continued confrontations. No business wants that.
That was a different machine. He couldn’t use the pull down machine so he went over to the pull up machine, had two people hoist him, wheelchair and all (strapped to his legs), up to the bar and did pull ups that way. Totally separate thing.
Facts which certainly wouldn’t be allowed into the trial. All the jury would hear is that this 20 year old kid was injured in an accident and paralyzed as result of surgery.
That was a great post, by the way. Unfortunately, it will likely go for naught as Jamie has shown no indication of introspection. I doubt he will even consider the possibility that he gamed the system.
I didn’t change my story. I meant there were “architechtural barriers” preventing me from being able to use the machine. I was playing your game. I meant “barriers” in the sense that the machine was designed in a way that didn’t allow me to physically use it properly. I would consider architechtural design flaws to be a “barrier” to handicap access.
No. Try reading it again. Other than the given example (which Jamie has just refuted anyway), there have been other examples of unfair criticism. Legitimate, focused critique is undermined by generalized bashing.
