[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[T. Joseph Carter]

I’m saying let him take his lumps like a man.  He’s demonstrated time 
and again that he can dish it out, but he seems totally unwilling to 
take what he gets in return.  I don’t presume to know your motives 
for enabling him, but enabling him is what you’re doing, and the 
whole list is paying the price for it.

I’m not suggesting someone else should take the job, nor am I 
suggesting that you are somehow anti-Federationist.  HE has 
demonstrated himself to be anti-Federationist, however, on numerous 
occasions.  That’s fine, until it begins to disrupt the list for any 
other purpose than his anti-federationist screed.  We’re at that 
point now.

I’ve seen more than one message from you threatening a respected 
federationist with removal from the lists for being baited into the 
little game.  Yet always, the instigator is permitted to continue 
without consequence.

Ultimately, the things we do have consequences.  It’s the natural 
order of things.  Yet he has been shielded from the social 
consequences of constantly going out of his way to offend others, 
because any time someone tells him where to stick it, you tell them 
that they need to stop or be removed.


Let me be plain about it:  John Heim is a parasite.  He is a whiny 
and bitter little twerp who believes the world OWES him something 
because he is blind.  He is fundamentally opposed to the NFB because 
our first response to people like him is simple: GET OVER YOURSELF.  
You deserve nothing special because you are blind.  You get the same 
chance everybody else gets.  If you don’t get the same chance, then 
the NFB is here to fight for equality.  But that seems not to be good 
enough.  He seems to demand more.  And if the NFB doesn’t agree, he 
demands that we change our policies and positions to accommodate his 
viewpoint.

If that warrants removal from this list, then remove me.  And then 
remove anyone else who thinks so.  Who’d be left, I wonder?  But I 
for one am tired of playing this infantile little game with the man.  
If his delicate ego cannot stand to know that there are some who 
think so little of him, then it’s time for him to learn that the 
world is a hard place, that a man is judged by his actions and his 
principles, and that outside of his sheltered little world, nobody 
really cares if he is offended by what they think of him.

God knows there are those on this list who think just about as much 
of me, and quote possibly I’ve added to that list.  I promise I’m not 
going to be deeply offended if someone says so.

Joseph


On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 09:58:44PM -0600, David Andrews wrote:
>So Joseph, let's be clear.  What exactly are you saying -- or what 
>are you asking for.
>
>Do you think I am a bad Federationist, disloyal, not a friend to the 
>cause -- or what?  What would you do -- have me removed.  If you want 
>to do that, go ahead and try -- go to Dr. Maurer and take your shot.
>
>I call each thread as I see it.  I have not "blindly" no pun intended 
>defend the person to whom you speak about.  Unlike yourself, and many 
>others, I am not convinced that he does what he does to provoke us.  
>I think he genuinely believes what he says, and knows he is right, 
>and can't understand how or why we don't understand it.
>
>While I don't always agree with him, he has the right to not be 
>attacked personally, no matter his affiliation.  If it were him who 
>were doing the personal attacks, I would jump on him too -- and I 
>believe I have in the past.
>
>You are making some pretty broad generalizations, and I just don't 
>think it holds up.  Generally a discussion degrades to the point 
>where several people go to far and make personal attacks.  I reply to 
>one or two -- but it is really meant for everybody.  So while you 
>might choose to believe I am picking on Federationists, because that 
>is what I do, it couldn't be farther from the truth.
>
>David Andrews, Moderator
>
>At 02:05 PM 12/9/2010, you wrote:
>>David, Have you noticed the trend of discussions on this list over 
>>the past couple of years or so?  I have, and I’ve double-checked 
>>the archives to be sure I wasn’t reading something into it.  The 
>>pattern is that every large discussion seems to involve one group 
>>of people arguing for the ability of the blind, for the NFB, its 
>>policies, and its mission.  The other side of the discussion is 
>>generally one person. The pattern of the discussion is that the 
>>individual says something incendiary against one of the above, 
>>something I have a hard time accepting is unintentional at this 
>>point.  The group reacts, some with distaste, some with 
>>disagreement, and some with anger.  This last group has taken the 
>>bait, if you will. This is where you come in, because inevitably 
>>the individual insists that he is “offended” and “baselessly 
>>attacked” for his views.  You defend him, going so far as to 
>>threaten to ban longtime regulars and well-respected 
>>federationists.  The individual takes this as a sign that he may 
>>stand behind you, and continue to insult not only us few here, but 
>>everything this organization stands for. The fact that there is not 
>>a single person on this list that does not know of whom I speak is 
>>evidence in and of itself.  It’s really got to stop.  Those who 
>>would not be flamed should not make a habit of setting fires.  
>>Having set a few myself over the years, it comes with the 
>>territory. Joseph On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:19:24PM -0600, David 
>>Andrews wrote: >This is a personal attack and is totally 
>>unacceptable.  You can >disagree with someone -- but please stick 
>>to facts, not speculation >etc. > >David Andrews, Moderator > >At 
>>03:09 PM
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org