[nfb-talk] Enough already!
John Heim
john at johnheim.net
Mon Dec 13 22:34:16 UTC 2010
Ray, you don't have to believe me but your argument is a non-sequitor. why
would someone think blind people are helpless because they might use
audible signals? Think about what you're saying. Do you think sighted people
go around saying, "I can't believe Those whiny blind people want audible
signals. Why can't they cross the street by listening to traffic noise like
everybody else?"
To a sighted person, being able to cross the street by listening to traffic
might seem like magic. But not being able to perform magic is not being
helpless. If sighted people stop thinking we can magically cross thestreet
by listening, it doesn't mean they think we're helpless. Its just silly to
argue that people are going to think we're helpless for not doing something
that they wouldn't dream of doing in a million years.
If the audible signal had been working, that mobility instructor would have
assumed you could cross the street by yourself. The truth is that if there
were audible signals everywhere, more people would assume we can get from
point A to point B by ourselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at att.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
> John, the connection is the fact that there truly was an audible signal at
> that intersection. But, it didn't work. The mobility instructor didn't
> think I could cross without it; but, I did. So, don't even try to tell me
> there's no connection.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>
> Now A Very Proud and very happy Mac user!!!
>
> Skype Name:
> barefootedray
>
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:37 PM, John Heim wrote:
>
>> Ray, nobody has to tell me that a lot of people have backward opinions
>> about what blind people can do. But to blame that on audible walk signals
>> is not logical. There's no cause and effect there. In fact, your example
>> is a non-sequitor. If the audible signal almost never worked, how could
>> that be the cause of the instructor's prejudice? It makes no sense. Most
>> likely, the instructor's prejudice had nothing to do with audible
>> signals.
>>
>> Original Message ----- From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at att.net>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>
>>
>>> But John, how can you say Mike is accusing you of having a Vendetta
>>> against the NFB? He's just pointing out the facts of the case. I too
>>> have had experience with audible traffic signals. I can tell you in
>>> three words how good they are. They don't work. Let me give you a
>>> specific example of the kind of mentality that tends to occur with this
>>> sort of thing. Once, back in 1997, I spent a short time in Arkansas at
>>> Lion's world for the Blind. I was with one of their mobility
>>> instructors. We were walking to a bank with which I did business while
>>> there. We came to an intersection which was supposed to have one of
>>> those audible signals. The instructor kept complaining to me how they
>>> couldn't get the audible signal to work. I finally had to explain to
>>> him that I was listening for the change in traffic. We crossed. When I
>>> found the parking lot of the bank, he told me, "wow! You must be
>>> psychic or something!".
>>>
>>> "What do you mean?" I asked.
>>>
>>> "Well, because you found the parking lot all by yourself.". He said,
>>> still not believing that I had done it.
>>>
>>> I must be psychic just because I could cross the street without the
>>> audible signal and that I found the parking lot of the bank all by
>>> myself? What? Tell me John, is that what you mean by rational and
>>> necessary safety? Is the attitude of the mobility instructor one you
>>> would agree with or not? Whether you like it or not, the very idea of
>>> an audible signal and a lack of confidence in the blind is what produced
>>> that attitude on the part of the mobility instructor. Had I not already
>>> had the skills I had, (Learned from the Louisiana Center for the Blind
>>> thank you very much), I would have been and would still be forever lost.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>>>
>>> Now A Very Proud and very happy Mac user!!!
>>>
>>> Skype Name:
>>> barefootedray
>>>
>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 2:22 PM, John Heim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike, I didn't say my opinion is right, I said its *rational*. You
>>>> keep wanting to dismiss my opinion for one reason or another. I'm only
>>>> pointing out why it is unfair for you to do so. The point is that it is
>>>> perfectly fair and reasonable for me to come in here and ask for an
>>>> explanation of the NFB's apparently counter-intuitive position on
>>>> audible walk signals.
>>>>
>>>> Again, , try to take a step back and look at it from a completely
>>>> unbiased point of view. You say your experience has been that audible
>>>> signals don't work. Well, a lot of blind people have had very much the
>>>> opposite experience. There should be absolutely no question that the
>>>> issue is debatable. Are you denying that there is probably a great
>>>> deal of difference of opinion on the value of audible signals in the
>>>> blind community? I'm just saying that since lives are at stake, the
>>>> only responsible thing to do is to try to get more information. How can
>>>> you not see how reasonable that is?
>>>>
>>>> You need to stop accusing me of having some kind of vendetta against
>>>> the NFB and start listening to my arguments. I'm being perfectly fair
>>>> and rational. That doesn't meain i'm right. It means I'm being fair and
>>>> rational.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:35 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 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‚?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 doesn‚?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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list