[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[Ray Foret Jr]

Frankly, I don't think this effort at sarcasm is any help.  The fact is that we all think what we all think, and, I dare say, this thread has just about run its course.


Sincerely, 
The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!

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

Skype Name:
barefootedray

On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:56 PM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:

> Now Mike, you should really stop being “unethical” with John.  Don't you know that his position is “rational” and “logical” and yours is based on “supposition”, “opinion”, and is otherwise “irresponsible”?
> 
> Honestly, I don’t know why you’re bothering to continue to beat this dead horse with him.  He’s been making the same rants about the same three issues for literally years.  The issue is black and white to him, and the NFB is black.  It is his personal mission to single- handedly change the NFB’s stand by beating us over the head with it until we accept the superiority that is John.
> 
> The notion that he wouldn’t know his own fallacies if they slapped him upside the head doesn’t seem to matter much.
> 
> Joseph
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:35:59AM -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:
>> John:
>> 
>> You say below that you take the very "rational" position that audible traffic signals are good for the blind.  I say that's not rationality but a mere expression of opinion and misguided at that.  With respect, you think the same of my position. And I say there's no way to test either proposition objectively since there are so many variables including expectations and attitudes of the test subjects.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:27, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Mike, would you please take a step back and consider what you just wrote?
>>> 
>>> You are essentially arguing that because you've already made up your minds, there's no reason to seek additional facts.  You've just admitted to the very closed mindedness you have been accusing me of. I beg you to rethink this position. I am not a kook no matter what you may think. I am merely taking the very rational position that audible walk signals are good for blind people. And now, a member of the NFB Board of Directors tells me that the issue is close because the issue is closed.
>>> 
>>> Well, the issue is NOT closed no matter how much the NFB would  like it to be.  The NFB  doesn't set policy for the Federal government of the United States. The Access Board continues to recommend more use of audible signals. And every day in this country, the issue comes up when blind people like myself go to the traffic engineer in their home town and ask for another audible signal.
>>> Your position is simply unconcionable.  You've made up your mind based on your own personal preference regardless of the actual safety of these devices. You are putting the lives of blind people at risk. If you are wrong about audible walk signals, you could be getting blind people killed.
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:00 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The answer is NO.  Traffic engineers aren't experts on blindness; neither are most O&M instructors though they would like to think otherwise. We are.  Besides, why should NFB advocate wasting time and money on studies when we believe we know the answer?
>>>> 
>>>> As I implied last evening, I doubt we'll come to a meeting of minds on this one.
>>>> 
>>>> Mike Freeman
>>>> 
>>>> sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 7:45, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Did the NFB consult traffic engineers and mobility instructors regarding the possibility of developing study methods for determining the usefulness of audible walk signals?  Does the NFB have any traffic engineers on staff or in any capacity within the organization to address this issue? It seems extremely unlikely to me that its impossible to study whether an APS makes it safer for a blind pedestrian to cross the street.  I believe that's the kind of thing traffic engineers do every day.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How about this.... I'll contact the Institue of Transportation Engineers and ask them to design a study.  If they come up with a suitible study methodology, would you help get the NFB to push for it and perhaps even fund it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 9:44 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> John:
>>>>> 
>>>>> With respect, I doubt that any answer I provide will satisfy you.  Your mind
>>>>> is made up which is your right.  So, I suppose, are most of ours.  But I'll
>>>>> answer your question in a fashion that probably won't satisfy either you
>>>>> *or* NFB:
>>>>> 
>>>>> WE haven't demanded studies because truly definitive studies cannot be done.
>>>>> (a) There aren't enough blind people to give a meaningful statistical
>>>>> result.  (b)  Ambient sound conditions, weather, the training of the blind
>>>>> test subjects and the type of APS are all so variable that coming up with
>>>>> concrete conclusions would be difficult at best.  Yes, I know; we demanded
>>>>> studies on quiet cars.  But at least in that instance, one could use a sound
>>>>> meter and gain some sort of objective information on the ratio of the volume
>>>>> of sound from quiet cars under various circumstances to that of the ambient
>>>>> environment.  With respect to APS's, however, so much is subjective that it
>>>>> would be tough to come up with meaningful tests.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Besides, in the case of quiet cars, we are advocating that a device be
>>>>> *added* whereas with audible pedestrian signals, they're not normally
>>>>> present so we see little reason to study something which our membership
>>>>> doesn't want and, in large measure, which isn't now present.  In other
>>>>> words, only advocates would gain any advantage from advocating APS studies.
>>>>> I submit that you wouldn't worry about whether we would advocate studies if
>>>>> you were satisfied with the number of APS's now in existance or planned.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, our position is a bit more subtle than outright opposition. Aside
>>>>> from the expense, I doubt that many would oppose strictly vibrotactile
>>>>> audible pedestrian signals in that they wouldn't fuzz up the ambient sound
>>>>> environment.  But many not in our movement persist in believing that APS
>>>>> units can do more than they can, e.g., give directional clues as to where a
>>>>> blind pedestrian should point himself/herself when crossing an intersection.
>>>>> It has been my experience that there are too many echos from buildings and
>>>>> the like to make such clues effective.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suppose most of us would worry a bit that if even vibrotactile signals
>>>>> were more prevalent than they now are -- but not everywhere -- we might
>>>>> encounter the situation which occurs often in Japan where other pedestrians
>>>>> and law officers have hizzy-fits if blind persons don't walk in the expected
>>>>> paths, i.e., those with tactile clues in the sidewalks and audible
>>>>> pedestrian signals.  Most of us in NFB would bridle at that sort of
>>>>> expectation; we would want to walk where we damned well pleased, to the same
>>>>> extent that other pedestrians can.  But that's a rather abstract concept to
>>>>> get across to peple, just as is the concept that acceptance of special
>>>>> blindness privileges causes lessend expectations of the blind as a whole,
>>>>> thus decreasing opportunities to participate in society as first-class
>>>>> citizens.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But I've said probably more than the subject warrants.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 4:46 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't believe I have claimed I'm in the right. Instead, I've been saying
>>>>> that I can't understand why people can't see how illogical the NFB position
>>>>> is. But there's a huge difference between those 2 statements. Admittedly,
>>>>> its a very subtle difference but its very, very important.  The way I put it
>>>>> is more or less a challenge to anyone to explain the NFB position to me. My
>>>>> post about the NFB position yesterday was chock full of questions. If the
>>>>> NFB thinks APS's are dangerous, why isn't it fighting for studies to be
>>>>> done?
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, Mike, you are probably in a better position to answer that question than
>>>>> anybody.  Where in the world did the NFB get the idea that APSs  make blind
>>>>> pedestrians less safe? The NFB has passed resolutions critical of the Access
>>>>> Board for wanting to expand the use of APSs without proof that they work.
>>>>> But hasn't the NFB done the same thing only in reverse?And if the NFB is
>>>>> unconvinced that APSs make blind pedestrians safer, wouldn't the responsible
>>>>> thing to do have been to demand proof?
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 6:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> John:
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are a fair number of us who *do* oppose your position.  Simply
>>>>> claiming that you are in the right won't cut it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wish you the best of luck in reforming the best of us -- and in finding
>>>>> the shekels to pay for APS's everywhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peace!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 3:36 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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:  >> I‚?Tm saying let him take his lumps like a man.  He‚?Ts demonstrated  >> time and again that he can dish it out, but he seems totally  >> unwilling to take what he gets in return.  I don‚?Tt presume to know  >> your motives for enabling him, but enabling him is what you‚?Tre  >> doing, and the whole list is paying the price for it. I‚?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.   >> That‚?Ts fine, until it begins to disrupt the list for any other  >> purpose than his anti-federationist screed.  We‚?Tre at that point  >> now. I‚?Tve seen more than one message from you threatening a  >> respected federationist with remov
>> al 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‚?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 don‚?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 d
>> oesn‚?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.  Who‚?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 it‚?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 I‚?Tve added to that list.  I promise I‚?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 I√¢¬?¬Tve double-checked >>the archives to be sure I  >> wasn√¢¬?¬Tt 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 √¢¬?¬ooffended√¢¬?¬ù and √¢¬?¬obaselessly
>> >>attacked√¢¬?¬ù 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√¢¬?¬Ts 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org