[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[John G. Heim]

I'm trying to plant the seed of doubt among the more rational members of 
this list.

But you're right. I have pretty much made up my mind to finally join the 
NFB.  For a long time I said to myself, why should I have to waste my time 
and money straightening out the NFB? But I really think the only way we're 
going to settle the APS issue is if some research is done. And I can't see 
it getting done if I don't get it going.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!


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: >> Iâ?Tm saying 
>let him take his lumps like a man.  Heâ?Ts demonstrated  >> time and again 
>that he can dish it out, but he seems totally  >> unwilling to take what he 
>gets in return.  I donâ?Tt presume to know  >> your motives for enabling 
>him, but enabling him is what youâ?Tre  >> doing, and the whole list is 
>paying the price for it. Iâ?Tm 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.   >> Thatâ?Ts fine, until it begins to disrupt the list 
>for any other  >> purpose than his anti-federationist screed.  Weâ?Tre at 
>that point  >> now. Iâ?Tve 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.  Itâ?Ts 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 donâ?Tt  >> 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 doesnâ?Tt 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.  Whoâ?Td 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 itâ?Ts 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 Iâ?Tve 
>added to that list.  I promise Iâ?Tm 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 IâÂ?ÂTve double-checked >>the archives to be 
>sure I  >> wasnâÂ?ÂTt 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 
>âÂ?ÂooffendedâÂ? and âÂ?Âobaselessly >>attackedâÂ? 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.  ItâÂ?ÂTs 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