[nfb-talk] Enough already!

John Heim john at johnheim.net
Sat Dec 11 19:34:11 UTC 2010


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’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 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 > > >_________________________________________ ______  
>> >nfb-talk mailing list >nfb-
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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