[Free]

This thread might be better named, 'Bob Drives Bus Over the Cliff'.
Bob, is this crazy turn of events actually some kind of a neuro-linguistic lab experiment psyop you are running against us?
Come on. Enough already.
How did your legitimate target of Jack Axaopoulos turn into Frank Colver and Red?
What did the government do to you in Ranger school?
Are you our Manchurian candidate?

Are you getting enough rest? Drinking enough good water? Too much cheap Oregon weed?
Something ain't right here. You aren't that clueless.

The 'wall o' shame' was a swell idea. That's not what caused Frank to go.
You know when this deal ran off the rails. Don't pretend it was mildly calling out Jack Ax for being a childish jerk.
Now all you can do is reach deep down and try to dig yourself out of the hole ya dug. Go remodel Frank's house or something.
Beg forgiveness for trying to browbeat everybody into falling on their lances tilting at windmills.

[Free]

If Red were posting about Jack on hanggliding.org as he's posted about me here he'd be banned. Red might even find that his posts had been changed to something despicable. Do you remember what Jack did when he banned Al Hernandez? Jack erased what Al had written and replaced it with:

      "I like to touch little boys".

That was in Al's own post as if Al had posted that himself. That's the kind of person who just banned Joe Faust. Despite what Red would like to believe (mostly to make himself feel better about not defending Joe), there is no moral equivalence between the U.S. Hawks and hanggliding.org. There is also no moral equivalence in how they are managed.

And that's a nice place to get back to Frank's original topic:

    Hang gliding is in more trouble than I thought.

Try to wrap your head around the fact that one of the largest communication channels in the entire sport of hang gliding is managed by someone as juvenile and irresponsible as Jack Axaopoulos.

Yes. Jack Axaopoulos is despicable. I didn't know he did that to Al. I think Jack is the one that likes to touch little boys.
And hey, Red's advise, and the presentation of same, is probably better than anyone else's advise at Jack's little coffee shop of horrors.
Hang in there Red and Rick and anyone else considering a dramatic exit. Bob was just jerking chains to see what happens. A science experiment, perhaps.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Yes. Jack Axaopoulos is despicable. I didn't know he did that to Al.

There's a whole lot that people don't know about what Jack Axaopoulos has done because people are either too polite or too scared to say anything about it. I'm neither.

The 'wall o' shame' was a swell idea. That's not what caused Frank to go.

What causes people to leave is knowing that they cannot justify what they've done. You'll notice that Red still hasn't answered the simple question that I asked him many posts ago:

    To Red: Can you quote for us what rule was in place at the time of
    Joe's banning that justified - in your own mind - Joe being banned?

That's not a hard question unless Red has no answer. Then it's real hard.

I had a nice day of flying with Joe today. I can look Joe in the eye and he knows that I would not abandon him in his time of need. Everyone on this forum should know that. I'd stand up for every one of you if I saw you being abused. That's worth more to me than all the fake friends who may jump ship.

Warren, if you're allowed to call out Jim Gaar, and Rick is allowed to call out the whole sport of paragliding, then I have a right to call out the people who stood by and watched Joe Faust be banned for no reason that they can justify.

Also, any of the people I've mentioned can give this some thought and change there minds. It's harder on their pride now than before, and that's why I waded into the list as slowly as possible - to give them some time to think about it. Every day that this injustice stands is another weight on their consciences.

[Red]

What causes people to leave is knowing that they cannot justify what they've done. You'll notice that Red still hasn't answered the simple question that I asked him many posts ago:
To Red: Can you quote for us what rule was in place at the time of Joe's banning that justified - in your own mind - Joe being banned?
That's not a hard question unless Red has no answer. Then it's real hard.
Warren, if you're allowed to call out Jim Gaar, and Rick is allowed to call out the whole sport of paragliding, then I have a right to call out the people who stood by and watched Joe Faust be banned for no reason that they can justify.

Bob,

When two people (being neither you nor I) have a dispute between them, it is none of my business how they resolve that dispute. That personal standard will not be changed by you, or by anything you may say. I do not intrude. I am not obliged to explain anything to anybody (my Constitutional right, if you care to check on that), and certainly not to you. You DID swear an oath to defend my rights, which also means you should not attack them.

I know that you have a beef with another forum owner. This conflict is the predictable result of two control freaks, colliding head-on. It has caused you untold aggravation and frustration over these many years, but you are OBSESSED with this non-repairable mess that you have perpetuated. This obsession is just not healthy for you, but again, that is none of my business, either. I know, of course, that you can run off into a corner and write yet another bad speech for me to deliver according to your orders, as if those words were my words. You have told me that I must make that delivery.

You have used almost every form of manipulation (character assassination, insults, innuendo, bullying, invented fantasies of right and wrong, and endless harangues) to try to make me obey your orders. What you want me to do is to perpetrate a LYING FRAUD on another forum, spouting your words and ideas as if they were mine. I will NOT do that. Maybe in your world such behavior is normal, or acceptable, but in my world, it is not. The only place where you will ever see me deliver your speeches will be inside a closed mind, not in the real world.

I have refused your every attempt to coerce my cooperation in this proposed LYING FRAUD of yours, and I can assure you, my refusal will not change. You may want to set yourself up as the final arbiter of right and wrong, but I will never accept that, about you. I run by my headlights, and not by yours. You rail against LIARS, but you seem to have no qualms about having me doing that, if it might benefit you. For the record, I regard honesty as a lifetime goal, not as a cheap standard that is discarded whenever it is inconvenient.

I do want you to know, it is now, and forever will be a total waste of your time and energy to continue trying to make me follow your orders. I will NOT do that, which is my automatic response to anybody issuing orders to me. In this case, my refusal is reinforced by my perception that your LYING FRAUD is to be the end result of those immoral orders and endless harangues.

Your unending publicizing of another forum that you envy/hate strikes me as being completely counter-productive here, but that is your specialty, I think.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Red,

The nastiness of your replies and your failure to produce any justification for your silence in Joe's banning both tell me that you indeed feel shamed by your silence.

I am sorry that the shame you feel is compelling you to respond as you have, and I fully understand that dynamic. But pointing your finger at me will not relieve you from your shame in watching Joe be banned while you remained silent. I am not involved in the shame you feel for not defending Joe. That's you wrestling with your own conscience. I am simply recording what I see and believe so that the world will not forget what was done. Your attacks on me may damage me as the messenger, but they do nothing to answer the question as to why you stood silent when an injustice was committed right in front of you.

[JoeF]

Premise: In Universe there is or is not objective morality.
Suppose there is not, but only subjective morality.
Then one might be crazy for arguing about a moral matter.

Suppose there is. Then it just might be wise to seek out just what is the objective morality about issues. Does in such have the following or not: What is done to one, even the least, is in some way done to all??? How one finds the scene may direct one's decisions concerning HG-forum questions. And changes of one's decisions.

======================
To start, I here and now ask all in the world and beyond for forgiveness for my having remained a registered member of the sg forum while he published a policy that discarded Scott Wise and others; and habitually obliterates poster's text forming real injury to those posters and injury to all readers of unfairly altered posts. In alignment with my asking for forgiveness, I promise to stay off that sg forum until sg policies align with moral principles that I perceive as part of the Universe's objective morality concerning the fair treatment of persons.

In this same breath, I thank the team that has wrestled with the issue of sg's policies in several ways including coming to my personal defense. I am proud of the open discussions here in the USHawks forum. Family struggles are something one may be proud of participating in; closing off communications may not help much. May we all keep making this forum better and better.
==========================

All persons in the world with open Internet connection (e.g. not China) may read Red, Frank, Bob, Sam, Bill, Rick and myself and others here in US Hawks. The asset of Google Search used by a seeker will find our contributions here in US Hawks forum. Reaching seekers suffice. I will double my effort to post meaningful HG content here in US Hawks.

===========================
I hold also that one person may ask another person questions; hopefully the asking person has good intentions. The person hearing or reading the question has the freedom to respond with silence, essay, action, or question, or etc. A question with good intentions is neutral; answering is not forced. Questions may be ill-formed: "Have you stopped eating candy?" The person asked may not ever have eaten candy. But better formed questions may have potential answers: "Will you perform a certain action that is now described: __________________???"
Questions:
"Will you explore whether or not there is objective morality in Universe?"
"Will you remain a poster in the sg forum?"
"Will you fly a HG this week?"
"Will you please write to your audience about transparency of voting?"
"Will you please write to your audience about how to be a safe HG pilot?"
"_____ "
"_____ "
"_____ "
"_____ "
""

[Red]

Red,
The nastiness of your replies and your failure to produce any justification for your silence in Joe's banning both tell me that you indeed feel shamed by your silence. I am sorry that the shame you feel is compelling you to respond as you have, and I fully understand that dynamic. But pointing your finger at me will not relieve you from your shame in watching Joe be banned while you remained silent. I am not involved in the shame you feel for not defending Joe. That's you wrestling with your own conscience. I am simply recording what I see and believe so that the world will not forget what was done. Your attacks on me may damage me as the messenger, but they do nothing to answer the question as to why you stood silent when an injustice was committed right in front of you.

Bob,

They say insanity is doing the same unproductive thing repeatedly, and expecting different results at some point.

https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3114&sid=5a8fc9acafbef56c44e347319ca1ecfb&start=60#p24819

[Bob Kuczewski]

They say insanity is doing the same unproductive thing repeatedly, and expecting different results at some point.

Red, the flaw in your logic is that we cannot do the same thing repeatedly even if we wanted to do so. Ask Tiger Woods or any athlete if they can actually repeat any action exactly. Each attempt is always different.

But even if we could do the same thing again (exactly), each time we repeat that action it's done in a world that's different than it was the last time. Have you ever used a hammer to disconnect the tapered shafts used in typical automotive front suspension (ball joints)? You may hit it 9 times with zero perceptible difference. It looks as if nothing has changed. But it has. On the 10th strike it pops right apart.

Every time a person reads - even the exact same words - they may gain a different perspective. But more importantly, when a person reads the same message from different people, it has an amplified effect.

So your analogy is obviously false. I won't call it a lie because I'll assume that you just hadn't thought it through before making your faulty statement. The next time I may not be so generous.

[Bob Kuczewski]

FYI, Joe's path (post above Red's) is the proper path. Joe recognizes that a bad thing has been done (to himself and to others) and he is vowing not to let it be done again. His pattern is Recognition followed by Action.

Red's path is to deny that a bad thing has been done to anyone because he feels that relieves him of any duty to take any corrective action at all. That may make Red feel better about himself, but the rest of us can see that he's simply failing to acknowledge that a bad thing has been done in the first place.

Thanks for your always thoughtful analysis Joe. I apologize that the U.S. Hawks was not yet a more powerful force for justice in your time of need. As you read this topic, ask yourself who has worked to make the U.S. Hawks stronger and who has worked to make it weaker.

[magentabluesky]

“Can you quote for us what rule was in place?”

hg.org is private property.

Jack Axaopoulos is the operator of hanggliding.org and uses the screen name "sg".

Link

Not only is Jack the operator, Jack is the owner. Jack is the property owner of HG.org. Jack has property rights in his ownership of hg.org.

Upon studying such linked information, a property owner may choose to exclude that particular pilot from use of involved land; property owners will vary on their personal choices; USHGRS.org will not make the decision for the property owner or land manager.

Link

Joe Faust has verbally stated he recognizes and respects a property owners rights to exclude a pilot’s use of the private property.

I rather enjoyed Joe’s posts on hg.org and hated it when Jack would lock threads and place them in the basement. A thread was locked on the Oz Report after Ben Reese posted a picture depicting flamingo poop in response to Joe's post. If you want to have the last word and stop the discussion drop some flamingo poo.

We can all be upset that Joe is excluded and is not able to exercise his free speech rights on the hg.org, but the hg.org is private property, period. No, I do not like the fact Joe is banned.

If you don’t like it, don’t fly there. Simple!