[nfb-talk] Enough already!

Sat Dec 11 17:46:09 UTC 2010

That's the point I was making. I mentioned those of us who were
attacked, and I believe it's about time this kind of attacking
business shuts down. This is a forum for us to help one another, not
tare one another to shreds. Blessings, Joshua

On 12/11/10, John Heim <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm for that. I would like to see some specific examples of the
> terrible "attacks" this person has been tossing around on this list.
> You people keep talking about the horrible things this person, whoever
> it is, has been saying. Well, like what?
>
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Ray Foret Jr wrote:
>
>> Although I agree with Joseph completely, I would wish  to add one
>> more thing.  There have been times when concervative blind people
>> have been attacked for daring to give their points of view on thing;
>> while, in the mean time, leftists federationists are free to give
>> theirs'.  I know this as a fact; because, I was myself subject to
>> such an attack.
>>
>> 	Now, to joseph.  Joseph, while we are on the same page, I would
>> wish to tell you that, from this point on, you stand some chance of
>> weakening your case without being more specific.  That means both
>> names and specific messages also.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>>
>> Now A Very Proud and very happy Mac user!!!
>>
>> Skype Name:
>> barefootedray
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 5:51 PM, T. Joseph Carter 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 Iâ€™ve double-
>>>>> checked the archives to be sure I wasnâ€™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
>>>>> â€œoffendedâ€  and â€œbaselessly attackedâ€  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.  Itâ€™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-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
>