[nfb-talk] Enough already!

[David Andrews]

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’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-