From: Tim.Cumings@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Tim Cumings)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: vendor favoritism
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: Tim.Cumings@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/460.0 - VI/BUG, Holbrook MA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23293

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

"iF YOU ARE A FREE-THINKER THEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY BUSINESS JOINING AN
ORGANIZATION LIKE THE NFB, ...yOU AS A FREE-THINKER WOULD NOT BE A GOOD
TEAM PLAYER.   a SHEEP DOESN'T THINK FOR HIMSELF OR DO ANYTHING TO
CONTRIBUTE TO HIS OWN WELFARE, BUT BLINDLY FOLLOWS THE LEADER.  a TEAM
PLAYER MAY FIGHT, SCRAP, KICK AND SCREAM IN THE HUDDLE, BUT WHEN IT'S
TIME TO PLAY FOOTBALL, THE QUARTERBACK CALLS THE SIGNALS.   iF THE
INTERNAL POLITICS OF THE FEDERATION DO NOT ALLOW FOR INDIVIDUAL
EXPRESSION THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WILL HAVE TO WORK OUT."

That's the point. If there's no room for individual expression even
_within the Federation, then your football analogy breaks down, because
there is no room for fighting, scrapping, kicking, or screaming _in the
_huddle. If this is the case, then it follows that Your distinction
between sheep and team playrs also breaks down.

You've just said that free thinkers don't have any business joining the
nfb. Then you say that a sheep is someone who doesn't think for him or
herself.

 Are nfbers' sheep? According to your own definition, You would probably
say no. Rather, you and other nfb supporters would probably argue that
nfb members are team players, because they contribute to their own
welfare by following Jernigan, since they believe he knows what is best
for this nation's blind population. However, to use your football
analogy, if there's no huddle befor the game, then it seems to me that
team players have become sheep.

"eVEN THOUGH i DISAGREE WITH THIS ORGANIZATIONS POSITIONS i WILL NOT BAD
MOUTH THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. i JUST
GOT MY FEDERATION MEMBERSHIP CARD TODAY, AND i JOINED THE FEDERATION AS
OPPOSED TO ACB BECAUSE i PERSONALLY THINK THAT "GO ALONG TO GET ALONG"
POLITICS DOESN'T WORK."

I wonder how the California Acb would feel about being  characterised as
being involved in "go along to get along politics." I know you didn't
specifically mention that state group, but I picked them since a
_majority of their membership are former Nfb members.

Furthermore, if the statistic that 20% of the membership nationwide of
the Acb are former nfbers, all of whom didn't leave just during the
"Civil War," what happened to them? Were they all team players who
suddenly became free thinkers? I'm sure many of these people were
committed to many principles of the nfb. Did they leave the Federation
and just give up political action. I doubt it. If that was the case,
they wouldn't join the Acb.

In fact, the California Acb was formed because the _entire Nfb
California affiliate was expelled. Maybe at one time there were great
differences between nfb and Acb philosophy, but I think today the basic
difference is not philosophy of blindness so much as it is in political
organization, democratic centralism (nfb) versus representative
democracy (acb.) Besides, "Nfb philosophy" has more holes in it than a
pound of Swiss cheese.

Finally, if you disagree with the Federation's positions, why did you
join the Federation? It seems to me that a person would join an
organization based _not _only on the organization's philosophy but also
on the positions that organization took on _specific issues.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460.0!Tim.Cumings
Internet: Tim.Cumings@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org