[JoeF]

From: Joe Faust
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 12:06:53 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: [HGAA: 7] Test of sending images and font effects.
---
Test: Using local Gmail sending, I attached a photo of a whack.

And also, I am calling a second photo from the open web and wonder how it will present or not:

whack.jpg (8.8 KiB) Viewed 11723 times

[JoeF]

From: JoeF
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 12:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Test of sending images and font effects.
---
In the test, the call of an open-web image did not stick.
The call was to
http://visual.merriam-webster.com/image ... glider.jpg

hang-glider.jpg (70.52 KiB) Viewed 11723 times

So, there is some limitations.
As yet, I did not try direct HTML coding via Source of an e-mail.

But the whack image attached to the sent e-mail did show in the Google group as an attached image.

On Aug 7, 12:06 pm, Joe Faust wrote:

- Show quoted text -

[Bob Kuczewski]

From: Bob Kuczewski
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:23:09 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: [HGAA: 9] Re: Test of sending images and font effects.
---
The emails that are sent seem to come through fine ... which I think is the primary purpose of these kinds of groups. But when the messages are posted to the group's web site they seem to lose some of their formatting (images are placed at the bottom - rather than in-line, and the font effects are lost). I don't really like that and I'd be curious if other groups like Yahoo do it differently.

[JoeF]

From: Joe Faust
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 12:22:59 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:22 pm
Subject: Test image from Gmail to Google group hgaa using HTML
---
Intended in-line photo:

Joe_Faust_Post_15.jpg (28.59 KiB) Viewed 11723 times

Testing in-line photo. How will it present to receivers and at Google Group hgaa ?

[Bob Kuczewski]

From: Bob Kuczewski
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:39:16 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [HGAA: 11] Test image from Gmail to Google group hgaa using HTML
---
Hi Joe,

That image came through just fine in my email. Maybe you can verify that below.

But I've checked the group and the image is posted (via thumbnail) below the full text, so interleaving images seems to be a problem.

Also, while I'm working to figure out my Yahoo account, I was wondering if you could make the stuff on your Yahoo group publicly viewable. Right now, I don't think I can see any of the messages there.

Thanks.

- Show quoted text -

[Bob Kuczewski]

From: Bob Kuczewski
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:25:29 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 7 2010 3:25 pm
Subject: HGAA: Fight or Flight?
---
Hello Fellow HGAA Group Members,

This group was started when the HGAA forum moderator began banning HGAA members from their forum ("The Great HGAA Purge of 2010"). At that time it seemed like a good idea to come up with an alternate place for people to communicate without having to rely on a central forum where one person could control what anyone said. That's why Scott and I created this Group where we are both moderators.

At this point it's not clear what the HGAA will end up being. From some perspectives, it's actually become much worse than USHPA already. On the other hand, they might recognize some of their mistakes and be able to fix them.

That brings me to the purpose of this topic. I'd like to know what people think of the HGAA. Is it worth continuing to try to fix the HGAA or should we start another national hang gliding association? All thoughts are welcome.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

[wingspan33]

From: S C Wise
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Aug 11 2010 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: HGAA: Fight or Flight?
---
First off Bob, I like to back up a little and explain that the initial motive to start this discussion site was when Jack Axaopoulos (SG) locked down the "original" HGAA web site - without any Transition Team authorization. In doing so he disallowed ALL HGAA members their right to use the site freely for intercommunication. This site was begun in order to allow that free communication despite Jack's single handed take over of the HGAA web site.

Then, of course, Jack used his "Dictator" status to elect a new HGAA Chairman that was more to his liking. Jack Axaopoulos also rigged that election so that it was more certain to go in the direction he favored. Then when I complained and criticized Jack for these underhanded actions (on HG.Org) I was banned from that site. You, for all intents and purposes, stood up for my actions and SG then banned you.

Just after these HG.org bannings, Jack Axaopoulos/SG whispered in John Wright's ear that he should hold "elections" to vote both you and I from HGAA. Corruption and manipulation were evident in each of those elections as well. In fact, the most likely way for the "Range Voting System" (Jack Axaopoulos' favored voting system) to be manipulated actually occurred in at least my "ban Scott from the HGAA" vote.

Baring all of the above in mind, I do not see any reason to make ANY effort to salvage the HGAA as it exists on any web site over which Jack Axaopoulos has complete and final control. And even if he claimed to "hand over control" I would not trust him. He lost my trust finally and completely when he took over and locked down the original HGAA web site.

As it now stands, Jack and his cronies, as well, I'm sure, with the help of some otherwise well meaning but naive individuals, has taken the concept behind the formation of the HGAA, ripped it to shreds and begun his own new organization which is far more corrupt than anything I know of in comparison with the USHPA.

There's no question in my mind that Jack Axaopoulos' version of HGAA (SGAA) is now a fatally deformed venture. Better to quickly put it out of it's misery, then to attempt to repair it.

S C Wise

On Aug 7, 6:25 pm, Bob Kuczewski wrote:

- Show quoted text -

[Bob Kuczewski]

From: Bob Kuczewski
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:27:40 -0700
Local: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [HGAA: 18] Re: HGAA: Fight or Flight?
---
Hello Scott and the HGAA Discussion Group,

I founded the HGAA with people who I hoped would work to create an organization where power was more widely distributed among its members than it is at USHPA. I also wanted an organization where open discussion (and even disagreement) was an acceptable part of their processes. That's not what the HGAA has become. In fact, it's become just the opposite. It currently has a greater concentration of power and a greater "need" to silence dissent than USHPA has had.

It's clear that the HGAA was seriously corrupted during the recent takeover (as you've described below). I suspect that SG (Jack) has had his own long term plans for a new organization - done HIS way. He just never had what it took to actually do anything about it. So when I began soliciting support for a new organization, I believe he saw his long term plans going up in smoke. But rather than shoot the new HGAA down from the beginning, I think he chose to let us build up a following and then step in with an overthrow using his power to control the web site. And that's exactly what happened ("He who controls the media controls the minds").

So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I certainly have my own thoughts on the various "camps" in the flying community, but I'd like to know what the rest of this group thinks. Personally, I think one very viable approach is to just sit back and see what they cook up over there. They've got a few hard nuts to crack (site insurance and FAA tandem exemption), and maybe we should just let them work on those nuts to see if they can crack them. In some ways, it's a no-lose situation. If they crack those nuts then it will be easier for us to come along and form yet another nicer group with the path already paved on those issues. On the other hand, if they can't crack those nuts, then people will realize that it wasn't dissent and discussion that was holding them back ... as they claimed.

But mostly, I'd like other people's views on the HGAA and the lay of the land. This discussion group now contains at least a couple of people with USHPA "insider" perspectives, and their honest comments would be welcome.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

- Show quoted text -

[JoeF]

From: Joe Faust
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:51:24 -0700
Local: Mon, Aug 9 2010 4:51 pm
Subject: New org consideration on land use
---
Ray,
*Thanks for reply and questions*.
The movement is pre-embryonic; there is no organization yet. The discussion is ongoing in four places, at lease. Hence, such is not my org; I am a messenger/publisher. Anyone interested in seeing what might be done to have an org fully focussed on framed and frame-controlled hang gliders is welcome to join the discussion. Your questions are spot-on and would be helpful.

My personal solutions have little weight; *the evolving org will find its own way.* A revisiting of the full meaning of waivers might go a long way in setting aside landowner risks. When a recreationist uses a property without waiver *without being invited* by a landowner, there may not be any liabilities involved for the landowner. Add on that a sound waiver by the recreationist and things get quite clear that the recreationist takes all the responsibilities for himself or herself. Commercial relationships with landowners begin to take on a different character.

Holding oneself responsible for all the damages one might do to properties and persons from one's actions affects the character of one's flying habits, planning, and execution. Whether one wants third-party insurance or not to cover the risk of injuring people's properties or persons who are not involved in hang gliding is a distinct consideration in itself that has pros and cons; does a system of such insurance increase or decrease overall safety of hang glider pilots? :: I have not seen proof either way, but such question might be important for eventual answering. Hard to know are any payouts from third-party insurance to non-hang gliding persons because of actions by hang glider pilots; so far, my file is empty on this matter, but a huge amount of money has been given to insurance companies for such coverage. If I injure a fence, then I would pay for the fence repair. If I hurt a public person, then I would be responsible for the injury; I plan my flights so that I will not injure people or property. My habit is to improve properties that I use. Groups of pilots frequestly act to improve properties that they are privileged to use.

http://groups.google.com/group/hgaa FOR THE DISCUSSION.

Best of lift to you and yours, Ray,
JoeF


On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Flyhangliders wrote:

> Joe;
> How would/does your new organization take care of landowners who need to
> protect their property while allowing us the opportunity to fly? How would
> you meet that challenge? Ray Berger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Faust
> To: Flyhangliders
> Sent: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 8:34 am
> Subject: [HG] Help form a national "frame-controlled" hang gliding organization
>
> The mission statement is only embryonic by a growing number of hang glider
> people. One tack regards having a national org serving string-controlled
> limp-canopy gliders and one org that rises to serve hang gliders that have
> frame-control via direct coupling with pilot's hands and in which the
> glider
> has framed shaping. Those bringing on the coming mission statement and
> more are discussing matters.
> Lift,
> JoeF.
>
> __,_._,___

[JoeF]

From: JoeF
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Aug 11 2010 1:05 pm
Subject: org needed
---
Barry P. sent in:
No organization exists that depends on Hang gliding for it's existence.
I would like to see one formed.