On 25 Sep 97 15:51, Andy Baracco wrote:
 AB> Hello Mr. Gashel. I found your
 AB> description of your legislative strategy
 AB> regarding the Gordon amendment to be
 AB> most enlightening and informative.
Mr. Gashel has been at it for many years.  Believe me, the rehab 
community was very interested in our take on this issue and what 
we were going to do about it.  I know certain agencies that were 
very interested in what Mr. Gashel had to say.
 AB> I'm curious as to why you didn't post
 AB> it behind my posts so the list
 AB> members could make a direct comparison
 AB> of points of view. Is that because
 AB> it is your position that the
 AB> membership should simply lock step and that
 AB> they are not capable of thinking for
 AB> themselves? When are you going to
 AB> stop this war mentality? We are not
Two things:  First, it is not we that are speaking of war or a war 
mentality.  It is you and a few others for whom, it seems, nothing 
NFB members say or do can be taken at face value.  You and a few 
others always seem hell-bent to find a conspiracy of silence or 
some sinister plot to dupe the rank-and-file of NFB or deprive it 
of valuable information.  Frankly, it is a favored (and somewhat 
old-hat and irritating) tactic of those who dislike us or who 
would cause us trouble to set up strawmen and then knock them 
down, parading arguments of freedom of speech and thought, etc.  
Questions and observations seem often in the character of "When 
was the last time you beat your wife?"  In other words, views are 
put and questions asked in such a way that there is no right 
answer short of espousing positions of other organizations, 
specifically, ACB, with whom we don't necessarily agree (or 
disagree) and whose policies are not up for discussion here.  I do 
not necessarily subscribe to the notion that your posts are 
politically-movitivated.  They may or may not be.  But if you are 
able to sit back and look at what's going on here, setting asside 
your apparent feeling that there is no difference between the two 
organizations of the blind (NFB and ACB), I should think you'd be 
hard-put not to at least see (if not understand) why some on this 
list might bristle at some of your posts.
Second, what order posts appear in varies from system to system -- 
it depends upon when differing posts arrive, what order of 
presentation you have your mailer set for, and, in the case of 
Fidonet systems, where you are in the country.  So trumpeting the 
fact that there was a time-lapse between your post of ACB 
advisories and Mr. Gshel's response as some sort of reluctance to 
discuss issues openly won't wash and is patently unfair.
 AB> living in the 1960's, and waving the
 AB> bloody shirt is getting kind of old.
No one waved the "bloody shirt".  We and ACB had somewhat 
differing strategies for attacking this issue.  Most of us, being 
NFB members, were rather more interested in what our strategy was 
going to be than what ACB's was/is.  Neither NFB nor ACB can 
compel its membership to do anything.  But we in NFB have a 
tradition of acting in unity -- voluntarily, I might add.  It is 
our experience that we pack more political punch that way!
 AB> Regardless of the total membership of
 AB> the organizations that make u the
 AB> organized blind movement, those numbers
 AB> are pitifully small when compared to
 AB> all of the interest groups competing
 AB> for the collective legislative ear. I
True.  That's why we need to husband our resources and use what 
strength we have to maximum effect.
 AB> do not think that we earn any
 AB> political currency by arguing with one
 AB> another. I wonder how long it will
The arguments started when you put ACB postings on this list and 
some NFB members objected that they wished to use their limited 
time and energy to read posts from the leaders of their own 
organization.  In fact, in this instance, NFB and ACB, to my 
knowledge, did not differ as to the end desired.  We did differ 
somewhat as to the means to be employed to achieve that end.  But 
even if we *had* differed, what's wrong with that?  Are you saying 
that we should suffer an abridgement of freedom of speech and 
thought by failing to argue for positions we believe correct?  
Surely you are not saying:  "I believe in your right to think as 
you like as long as you agree with me!"  Disagreements are part of 
our blessed society.  Yes, it would be better if all agreed on 
strategy.  Sometimes this works.  But doing so at the cost of 
foresaking fundamental beliefs serves us all ill.
 AB> take for you to come to realize that.
 AB> I think that you have heard from
 AB> several of the list members that they
 AB> want, and feel that they deserve to
 AB> hear different viewpoints. What do you
All they had to do was look at ACB's web page to get them.
 AB> fear by allowing that to happen.
There's a fine example of what I wrote of earlier.  You define our 
attitude as one of fear.  The most vehement posts opposing you 
spoke not of being afraid but of having their time wasted!  How 
about getting off it and relaxing a bit and realizing that the 
primary purpose of the list is for the discussion of NFB 
philosophy and principles.  This means asking questions, too.  
Incidentally, I *do* read the Forum which is more than most ACB 
members in my community do.
 AB> Many of your comments obviously spring
 AB> from fear. Hey, Jim, what are you
 AB> afraid of?
Ah, that wonderful little word "obviously".  Obvious to whom?
Mike Freeman; Internet: mikef@pacifier.com; Amateur Radio Callsign: K7UIJ
President, National Federation of the Blind of Washington
/* PGP2.6.2 Public Key available via my ".plan" file */
... A professor is someone who talks in someone else's sleep.
--- PCRR QWK 1.60
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------