[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[David Andrews]

Ray, at one time or another, most of us on this 
or that list, have been attacked because somebody 
disagrees with us.  Is it because you are 
conservative, have x-colored hair, or something else -- who knows.

I have been accused of being a mouth piece of the 
NFB, and of attacking Federationists.  Which is 
it -- or is life just complicated?

Dave

At 06:38 PM 12/10/2010, you wrote:
>Although I agree with Joseph completely, I would 
>wish  to add one more thing.  There have been 
>times when concervative blind people have been 
>attacked for daring to give their points of view 
>on thing; while, in the mean time, leftists 
>federationists are free to give theirs'.  I know 
>this as a fact; because, I was myself subject to 
>such an attack.    Now, to joseph.  Joseph, 
>while we are on the same page, I would wish to 
>tell you that, from this point on, you stand 
>some chance of weakening your case without being 
>more specific.  That means both names and 
>specific messages also. Sincerely, The 
>Constantly Barefooted Ray!!! Now A Very Proud 
>and very happy Mac user!!! Skype Name: 
>barefootedray On Dec 10, 2010, at 5:51 PM, T. 
>Joseph Carter 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-