From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:02:11 GMT
Reply-To: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23317

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to William Wilson <09 Jul 92 09:31> Carla Campbell wrote:

 CC> Well put, Willie.  I'm actually rather
 CC> surprised that David saw fit to
 CC> remove the article-- but not because
 CC> anyone has any "right" to hate it
 CC> up there.  Rather, I'd have thought
 CC> having it available as fodder for
 CC> debate and discussion might have
 CC> produced productive conversation--
 CC> whether it would have been a
 CC> collective move to counter the article's
 CC> assertions or whatever.  Kind of like
 CC> reading things with which you
 CC> disagree in Political Science courses
 CC> and then having a fun/educational
 CC> time tearing them to shreds.  But
 CC> then, I've never had a conventional
 CC> approach to information.

 CC> Information is only as powerful as you
 CC> make it, to my way of thinking.

Hi, Carla.

Let me respond in two ways.  Before doing so, however, let me say that I
enjoy debating (if it's to some purpose) and I tend to subscribe to the
"Let a hundred flowers bloom" school, believing that any philosophical
or political system worth its salt should be able to stand the heat.

Having said this, though, let me say first that all the negative hoopla
in the article was adduced without proof but was done skillfully enough
that someone not thoroughly acquainted with the events described in
passing wouldn't know it.  Although we could refute the article, point
by point, it would take quite a ptome (since, without chapter-and-verse
proof, no one who opposed us would believe us) and, frankly, we don't
have the time to put in on that sort of no-win situation; our time is
better spent dealing with the real problems of the blind.  Second, even
a "free press" such as, say, the Voice of America maintained itself to
be, never broadcast extensively from, say, Radio Moscow; I assume the
reason was that SWLers were assumed to be able to turn the radio dial
and find it for themselves.  Likewise with this article; it's on the MCB
BBS for anyone to grab; there's no validation wait or anything; I
grabbed it within five minutes of my first login.  Why should we spend
disk space on it when others are willing to do so.

Third (I just thought of another one), if the article had been truly
investigatory and had been as zealous about subtly criticizing those
whom it  quoted as having a dislike for the NFB and Dr. Jernigan as it
was in slanting everything it said (or almost everything, anyway) about
the NFB, I think that NFB members might have been more inclined to leave
the article on the board.

The problem is that most of this has been said before and the charges
have all been disproved before; it seems, though, to do little good.  I
suspect David Andrews said to himself:  "Why bother?"

Cheers!

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org