[nfb-talk] Traffic Signals was [john at johnheim.com: unethical personal attacks]

Steve Jacobson steve.jacobson at visi.com
Fri May 28 19:56:39 UTC 2010 

Everyone,

If people feel they have been insulted on either side of this business take it up with one another or with Dave andrews.  We don't all need to hear about whose 
feelings were hurt the most.  

John, you say you are not attempting to tear down the Federation, and frankly, I would not have used those terms, but I find your repeated use of loaded terms such 
as "wrong-headed" and your focusing on an article that is over seven years old to be inconsistent with meaningful debate.  Your assertion at one point that informed 
people agree with you indicates to me that you see your positions as being above question.  I don't claim that opinions have completely changed, but certainly some 
aspects of this issue have changed during the past decade.  While you say you have not said we are universally agains accessible pedestrian signals, almost all of 
your arguments are in the "for or against" context.  You try to make people argue against safety, probably so you can quote out of context someone's angry 
response while safety is really a more complicated issue involving multiple factors and cannot be reduced to the existence or lack thereof of an audible pedestrian 
signal without defining the intersection.  Even exploring what is meant by safety is important.  Many of us have been prevented from doing something we have 
wanted to do because someone thought it was safer if we didn't.  I am not advocating that I want to cross a street on a red light, but I get skeptical of what is 
actually meant when someone is concerned for my safety.  I do not want to see a blind person who is struggling with travel techniques crossing a street while the 
light is red.  However, I don't want to see that same person confidentally crossing on a light that an APS has said was green and stepping into the path of a turning 
car that they had not judged.  Am I saying that an APS directly makes this happen?  No, but safety is figuring out what training works in addition to when an audible 
signal helps or interferes.  Even where we might agree that a street crossing needs an APS, there needs to be some work done to figure out which type might be 
best.  Some of the links you have given provide a good overview, but what I see in some cases is the attitude of put any signal in now rather than doing this kind of 
analysis.  Complexities like this don't lend them to quick fixes or simplistic statements, though, but they are what life is made of.

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:37:14 -0500, John G. Heim wrote:

>What evidence do you have for your claim that I want to "tear down" the NFB 
>other than that I happen to disagree with several of its policies?  Don't 
>you see that if you attack me simply for disagreeing with NFB policies, 
>you're confirming everything I have been saying? The NFB needs voices of 
>opposition. If I was irrational or insulting, it would be different. But I 
>have been unrelentingly rational and fair.

>I never said the NFB opposes audible walk signals "universally".  I said 
>they organized protests against them. I also pointed to an article in the 
>Braille Monitor which described the point of view expressed in the article 
>as "representative" of that of NFB members.  In the article, the author 
>claims that audible walk signals make blind pedestrians less safe.  The 
>Braille Monitor itself described that opinion as representative of its 
>members. From what I can see on this list, that seems to be correct.

>If you think I'm exaggerating the NFB position, please read the article 
>about the protest organized by the NFB.
>http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030103.htm

>That article was written by a member of the NFB Board of Directors. It 
>doesn't say anything about being in favor of certain audible signals or in 
>favor of them under certain conditions.  Quite the contrary, . Here is a 
>section of that article:

>--- begin quote ---

>Mike Freeman: "Some Federationists crossed Sixth Avenue so that chanting 
>with antiphonal responses could be set up. Such chants as: `Got our canes; 
>got our minds. We don't need those beeping signs!'; `Chirp, chirp, beep, 
>beep! We know how to cross the street!';

>--- end quote ---



>If the NFB was trying to say it favors audible walk signals under certain 
>conditions, it was doing a very poor job of saying so.



>In my opinion, it is unfair for Joseph to keep making these vague 
>accusations while refusing to even listening to my response. I can't ask him 
>to clarify his accusations because he has my messages filtered.


>From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] [john at johnheim.com: unethical personal attacks]


>> Kenneth,
>>
>> Have you read John's messages?  Last I checked, he did not claim to be a 
>> member of this organization.  Moreover, he insists that the NFB has an 
>> obligation to represent the viewpoint of the blind people who are not its 
>> membership.  Setting aside the sheer impossibility of this, the discussion 
>> inevitably winds up concluding that by blind people who aren't members of 
>> the organization, John means himself.  And by represent, he means change 
>> our views so that what he believes is correct is the policy of the NFB.
>>
>> No one man has the power to change the policies and direction of this 
>> organization by himself.  Not even Dr. Jernigan had that kind of sway over 
>> the NFB, and he was a lot more charismatic.  Likewise, the words of 
>> Jernigan ring bold, true, and unafraid in the hearts of many.  By 
>> contrast, Heim's words ring of the cheap straw man attacks they are, 
>> intended solely to tear down what we have built.
>>
>> He then goes on to say that we universally oppose audible pedestrian 
>> signals, descriptive video, access to new technologies, and I would be 
>> shocked if he doesn't also argue that NFB hates guide dogs, though I don't 
>> recall if he's ever made that argument now or not.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:40:39PM -0400, Kenneth Chrane wrote:
>>>Hi Don, we do have a good list and a good group.
>>>Dr. Tenbroek resigned because he under-went personal attacks in 1961.
>>>We don't want a repeat perforance of it.
>>>Kenneth Chrane
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "don nepple" <dnepple at hotmail.com>
>>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:54 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] [john at johnheim.com: unethical personal attacks]
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>yes ray i all so do not like this on this list we have a good list so yes 
>>>>he shshould googo off the list.by for now.
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------
>>>>>From: jheim at math.wisc.edu
>>>>>To: nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:38:45 -0500
>>>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] [john at johnheim.com: unethical personal attacks]
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know what you're talking about. People have been uncivil toward 
>>>>>me,
>>>>>not the other way around.
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>From: "Ray Foret Jr"
>>>>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List"
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 3:16 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] [john at johnheim.com: unethical personal attacks]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I wish to state here and now that I stand with Sarah and Joseph 
>>>>>>completely.
>>>>>>I wish to openly ask that John be removed from the lists. Under normal
>>>>>>circumstances, I would write Dave privately and protest; but, in this 
>>>>>>case,
>>>>>>I am choosing to come right straight out and plainly and openly ask 
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>this be done. Civil debate is one thing; and, God knows we've had go
>>>>>>rounds about this issue and that on this list. But this, I think is 
>>>>>>much
>>>>>>too far!!!! Very much too far!!! ENOUGH, ENOUGH, ENOUGH!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now a proud Mac user!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>e-mail:
>>>>>>rforetjr at comcast dot net
>>>>>>skype:
>>>>>>barefootedray
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with 
>>>>Hotmail.
>>>>http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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