[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[Constance Canode]

Thank you Dave.  I for one have had just about enough of this subject.

Connie Canode
At 11:32 PM 12/11/2010, you wrote:
>John:
>
>If you are trying to get the NFB to change its 
>position you won't do it through this list -- and you are wasting your time.
>
>Dave
>
>At 01:34 PM 12/11/2010, you wrote:
>>I've never baited anyone on this list. I'm not 
>>trolling. I don't care  what people think of me 
>>and it doesn't matter a flying fig if 
>>the  people on this list find me annoying. The 
>>NFB has done many very  destructive things over 
>>the past ten years. It deserves criticism 
>>for  its actions on accessible pedestrian 
>>signals, accessible money, and  DVS.  When the 
>>NFB engages in these issues, it has to 
>>expect  criticism. These are huge issues 
>>affecting millions of people and 
>>I  shouldn't  be expected  to worry about 
>>whether I'm annoying Ray and  Joseph. Lives are 
>>at stake here. I think the NFB can tolerate a 
>>little  criticism. Freedom of speech isn't just 
>>for those we agree with. By no means do 
>>I  expect anyone to listen to me. You have 
>>every right to ignore me. But  you don't have 
>>the right, ethically, to silence me. I'm not 
>>saying you  can't silence me. I'm saying that 
>>would be wrong. It would be unfair  and 
>>unethical. In fact, you may not have the right 
>>to silence me. I ran this past a  lawyer one 
>>time and he said that since the NFB accepts 
>>money from the  federal government, my right to 
>>post here may be protected under the  First 
>>Amendment.  He didn't seem to sure but lets not 
>>bother finding  out. On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:33 
>>PM, David Andrews wrote: > 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-
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org