[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[David Andrews]

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