[Nobody]

You will ... hopefully. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Everyone has to do their part once in a while. If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out. One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

[Bob Kuczewski]

  Historical Context added March 27th, 2016:  
      Tad was banned from the US Hawks Forum on December 14th, 2011.  
      The previous post by the user "NOBODY" was made 2 weeks later when  
      the topic of Tad's ban was still a hot topic on the US Hawks Forum.  
      The response below was made in that context, and it addressed the  
      reasons for the ban.  

You will ... hopefully. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Everyone has to do their part once in a while. If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out. One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Tad was (and is) an unrepentant child molester. He expressed no regrets over his homosexual relationship with a 12 year old boy other than that he regretted the consequences of getting caught.

As the operator of this forum I felt the duty to protect our members - some of whom may not be adults. That's why I ultimately chose to ban Tad from this site. However, I am not opposed to his name or his hang gliding ideas being discussed. I am not opposed to links posted to his KiteStrings forum. I am not trying to obliterate Tad (as Jack and Davis have done). Instead, I'm just trying to create a forum where we can build a better national hang gliding association than the one we have.

I stand behind my decision with Tad, and I would like to hear how you think this might have been handled differently. I had hoped for a better solution myself, but I wasn't able to find one. If you have a better solution, then please don't be stingy about sharing it with us.

Thanks.

[JoeF]

A note by Chris Santacroce regarding a petition with USHPA about dropping people deliberately from tandem flights included the following

*3. Our sport is constantly evolving and it's better for our national association to be inclusive rather than excluding newer forms of paragliding-related activities."

In reading his note, I felt that the transformation of USHPA to non-airframed canopy concerns has become nearly complete, culture-wise. It may be time to split all at once and have an airframe-culture-respecting org. Non-airframed gliding canopies culture is what it is; it is not airframed hang glider culture.

[SamKellner]

Joe, Yes! It is time for a Hang Gliding Assn.

I think some of these high profile PG folks that are steering USHPA are sitting ready to manufacture these new wings.

The success of these new PG types in almost guaranteed with USHPA insurance coverage. Well we know what shape the insurance renewal negotiations are in. I don't but the story that it is spectator incidents causing the problems.

Forget safety, they are more interested in the $$.

That's why they want to be inclusive. They are probably ready, if not already, to manufacture wing suits next. We'll see.

Thanks for your experienced opinion,
Sam Kellner

[miguel]

I stand behind my decision with Tad, and I would like to hear how you think this might have been handled differently. I had hoped for a better solution myself, but I wasn't able to find one. If you have a better solution, then please don't be stingy about sharing it with us.

Thanks.

I will take the bait.

You could have deleted all of the pederasty at its appearance. It does the forum no good to keep dredging it up for all readers to see. Other than the pederasty, I had no problems with Tad's postings.

[SamKellner]

It does the forum no good to keep dredging it up for all readers to see.

Yet here it is in the Building the Hawks forum. I totally agree, deleat all of his garbage and reference.

Personally, I can get along just fine without that part of the forum. Actually, I am hoping I don't regret linking any thing to this forum with the continual dredging up.

Additionally, I am not worried about any threat of having someone say "told you so". He had nothing better to offer. Only a obsession to waste/dominate other's attention.

Please, let's move on. Bob, if this is going to continue, please let me know.

Thank You,
Sam

[Bob Kuczewski]

I will take the bait.

You could have deleted all of the pederasty at its appearance. It does the forum no good to keep dredging it up for all readers to see. Other than the pederasty, I had no problems with Tad's postings.

My final decision was made based on a phone call where Tad relayed that he had molested a 12 year old boy while he (Tad) was in a position of trust (scouting, in this case) regarding the boy. I asked Tad if he felt that it was wrong for a 30 year old man to have a sexual relationship with a 12 year old boy. He replied that he didn't see a problem other than the consequences dealt by society. He couldn't seem to grasp that a 12 year old boy does not have the maturity to enter into that kind of relationship.

Now I can be forgiving of many things if people are repentant. But Tad gave me no assurance whatsoever that he would not repeat this behavior. Since I have no control over the ages of people on this forum, and since I do not monitor any PM messages sent between members, I decided that it was prudent to ban him from the forum.

As a side note, Tad's inability to see a problem with his 12yr/30yr relationship reflects a systemic problem in Tad's reasoning. I believe this is the root of many of Tad's problems in other areas. If Tad can defend and justify his sexual relationship with a 12 year old boy, then I believe he can defend and justify anything that he does or says. I believe that's been his fundamental problem on all of these forum discussions.

Having said all of that, I still believe that Tad can contribute to the sport of hang gliding in many ways. I am open to any suggestions on how we can do that while not exposing our younger members to any potential risk. Thanks.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Please, let's move on. Bob, if this is going to continue, please let me know.

There will be many problems that crop up as the US Hawks grows. I think it's important that we - as a community - work together to handle them in the best way that we can. There are lots of things to learn from Tad's case. I am not convinced that I did the best thing, and I think it's good to talk about other alternatives. That's part of what will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA or HGAA.

We can keep from becoming another USHPA by discussing our decisions openly and taking responsibility for our decisions. The Tad decision was clearly mine, and I feel obligated to answer questions regarding why I did it just as I feel USHPA should show their voting record and explain their decisions.

We can keep from becoming another HGAA by moving toward a Board of Directors to make decisions. The HGAA imploded because one person (Jack/SG) could do whatever he wanted on the forum with no accountability. Right now the US Hawks isn't much different. It's just one dictator (me) in place of another (Jack). But I'm trying to bend over backwards not to abuse that power and to discuss things with the community as I'm doing here. That's still not as good as having a real elected Board of Directors, but I don't think we have the membership or participation to do that yet. But when we get to that point, I'd be happy to see people like Sam and Miguel on that Board.

[SamKellner]

A note by Chris Santacroce regarding a petition with USHPA about dropping people deliberately from tandem flights included the following

Petition that USHPA not ban skydiving/ d-bagging from hg/pg Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:05 pm
This will be voted on at the board meeting next week

At the Spring 2012 USHPA board meeting the tandem committee will be voting on this agenda item: "Revisit rule for 'not dropping people' and discuss making it a blanket rule." The current rule prohibits skydiving/jumping from a tandem glider at insured flying sites, and the proposed "blanket rule" would apply to both insured and non-insured flying sites. By signing this petition you are letting the tandem committee know that you oppose the "blanket rule".

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tandem/

Arguments in favor of the petition:
1. There's no evidence skydiving/jumping from tandems is any riskier than traditional tandem flights
2. There haven't been any reported accidents or insurance claims as a result of jumping from tandems
3. Our sport is constantly evolving and it's better for our national association to be inclusive rather than excluding newer forms of hang-gliding / paragliding-related activities

Much of the interest in this topic stems from the desire to d-bag from tandem paragliders to facilitate aerobatic competition. Apparently this is sometimes more practical than simply towing up the aerobatic paraglider directly. It's not something I know much about really.

If this is of interest to you, consider contacting the USHPA tandem committee and your regional director, as well as signing the petition.

It might be wise to put your your USHPA # in the comment space on the petition form.

The arguments, #1 and #2, in favor indicate that some are already in violation. So,if this passes, it looks like rewarding poor behavior, again.

Joe, do you have a plan? I hope it's something more substantial than worrying about hurting the feelings of Chester the molester.

[Free]

It does the forum no good to keep dredging it up for all readers to see.

Yet here it is in the Building the Hawks forum. I totally agree, deleat all of his garbage and reference.

Personally, I can get along just fine without that part of the forum. Actually, I am hoping I don't regret linking any thing to this forum with the continual dredging up.

Additionally, I am not worried about any threat of having someone say "told you so". He had nothing better to offer. Only a obsession to waste/dominate other's attention.

Please, let's move on. Bob, if this is going to continue, please let me know.

Thank You,
Sam

Must be some nasty water you guys are drinking in that part of Texas.
Ignore the message as you beat the messenger and its probably just a matter of time before someone can say
"told you so". Can't say you weren't warned.