[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[David Andrews]

Joseph, I am not going to throw you off this list 
because of what you said.  I also think that John 
fully know what most people think of him -- and his ideas.

I have only jumped on people for personal 
attacks, not for stating their opinion, as long as that isn't personal.

I am not convinced that John is intentionally 
baiting the list, although I acknowledge that he 
may be and I will think about what you say.

I will also say that I am getting pretty tired of 
this whole thing, John himself says that we have 
been having this discussion for over two years 
and no one's mind has been changed.  Consequently 
I may declare the subject off topic if and until 
there are new developments.  It doesn't do anyone 
any good to keep rehashing the same old ground 
and making each other mad.  We certainly won't 
come to any understanding that way.

Dave

At 05:51 PM 12/10/2010, you wrote:
>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-