[nfb-talk] FW: [CCB-L] Fw: Please Distribute: November-December2007 Dialogue Is Here!

[T. Joseph Carter]

Unfortunately I never knew Dr. Jernigan, but I sure bet it did.  *grin*

It seems like both very good and very bad that Dr. Maurer is a bit more
mellow.  Sometimes we need Dr. Jernigan's fiery spirit.  But then, it's
probably a lot easier to question Dr. Maurer's position.  Personally I
think that's a very important thing whether he's right or wrong.

If he's right, then the questions serve to clearly define what the
position is, the scope of that position, and both its applications and
implications.  It's also a great chance to get answers to those "Yeah,
but what about...?" sorts of cases.  Understanding happens, even if
agreement doesn't.

If he's wrong, then we don't want him taking the organization in a bad
direction.  And he is going to be wrong at least some of the time just
because he's human.  When that happens, questioning his position may
highlight the weaknesses of that position.  The result is a stronger
position through reconsideration with more available data.

I wish I'd been able to know him all the same, even if arguing with him
wouldn't have been easy.  I have enough people to argue with.  *grin*
Everyone who has known him says the same thing: He was a great man and a
strong leader.  They all miss him, too.

On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:13:36PM -0600, David Andrews wrote:
> Ryan:
> 
> Having "stones" as you put it, is not a matter of using fowl language 
> or taking cheap shots at others.
> 
> How many times have you told Dr. Jernigan, to his face, that you 
> didn't agree with him -- in other words, he was wrong.  Now that took 
> "stones."!!!
> 
> Dave