[nfb-talk] Enough already!
John Heim
john at johnheim.net
Mon Dec 13 19:56:39 UTC 2010
I haven't attacked anybody.
Its not my fault you won't listen, Ray. Its yours.
----- 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 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
> ON this matter, John, Mike and I agree completely!!! Yes, there are some
> issues Mike and I agree on, and you and this issue are two of them. You
> have repeatedly and personally attacked a number of us, and, frankly, I
> think most of us here have just plain had enough.
>
> We've tried to bae reasonable with you. We've explained ourselves about
> to death. We've been more than patient with you; but, at every turn, you
> viciously attack us. I have a feeling this is about to come to an end.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>
> Now A Very Proud and very happy Mac user!!!
>
> Skype Name:
> barefootedray
>
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:25 AM, John Heim wrote:
>
>> Well, I have to make some comments on the debate first. I'll post a
>> response about the issues seperately.
>>
>> First of all, my mind isn't made up. I can't imagine where you got that
>> idea but its not true. Maybe you're used to arguing with people who hate
>> the NFB. But that doesn't include me. Its not reasonable for you to
>> accuse me of having a closed mind on this issue when my position is the
>> intuitively obvious one. Its not irrational for me to be in favor of
>> audible walk signals. Of course I am going to demand solid evidence
>> against them. That is only rational.
>>
>> Secondly its unethical for you to say that no matter what you say, I
>> won't buy it because now, if I dispute your points, you can claim its
>> "proof" that my mind is made up. In other words, you could give the
>> crazies argument in the world and I couldn't dispute it under your rules.
>> So that's unfair and unethical. As a member of the Board of Directors,
>> you are obligated to respond to questions and criticisms of the type that
>> I have been posting. That comes with the job. If you don't like it, you
>> shouldn't have taken the position. You have every right to remain silent.
>> But if you're going to respond, you have to be fair.
>>
>> ----- 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:
>>> >> Iâ?Tm saying let him take his lumps like a man. Heâ?Ts demonstrated
>>> >> time and again that he can dish it out, but he seems totally >>
>>> unwilling to take what he gets in return. I donâ?Tt presume to know >>
>>> your motives for enabling him, but enabling him is what youâ?Tre >>
>>> doing, and the whole list is paying the price for it. Iâ?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. >> Thatâ?Ts
>>> fine, until it begins to disrupt the list for any other >> purpose than
>>> his anti-federationist screed. Weâ?Tre at that point >> now. Iâ?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.
>>> Itâ?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 donâ?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 doesnâ?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. Whoâ?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 itâ?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 Iâ?Tve added to that list. I promise
>>> Iâ?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 IâÂ?ÂTve double-checked >>the archives
>>> to be sure I >> wasnâÂ?ÂTt 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 âÂ?ÂooffendedâÂ?¡ and
>>> âÂ?Âobaselessly >>attackedâÂ?¡ 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. ItâÂ?ÂTs 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
>
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list