[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[Ray Foret Jr]

Dave,

I would say this.  It seems to be a matter of context.  IF I gave out a conservative position on something; even if I felt it was in defense of the NFB position on a certain matter, (a matter of perspective you see), I was attacked not for the blindness position, rather, for the conservative element of the position.  I think, though, that in this, the very latest incident, we're talking about how John always seems to attack the NFB's position on the matter, and, those who defend what they and or we believe to be the NFB position on the matter, (namely that a blind person can do this or that thing), it's the defenders who seem to get the short end of the stick.  However, I wish to take a line or two to clarify something.  I do not think Joseph was aiming to have you removed as moderator.  Instead, I believe he was just seeking simple justice.  Doubtless, you've seen my public advice to him on what I suppose he would have to do if removal or some other admonishment of you were his aim.  IF it were my own intention, I certainly would not have publicly posted the message he did.  Rather, I would just have quietly gone about my gathering of messages and putting together of my argument and then privately presented it.  The fact that he posted so publicly his frustrations, (and the fact that I so publicly sided with him), indicates; at least on my part, a fundamental belief that basic justice is still possible on this list.  Dave, if I did not believe that, I would have unsubscribed quite some time ago.


Sincerely, 
The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!

Now A Very Proud and very happy Mac user!!!

Skype Name:
barefootedray

On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:37 PM, David Andrews wrote:

> 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-
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org