[Bob Kuczewski]

Red, nothing you wrote addressed your own culpability in your actions. You continue to use words like "mouthpiece", and "shill", and "puppet" regarding my requests for you to speak out against Joe's banning. Don't you want to speak out about it of your own free will?

Also, you keep trying to make this "all about Bob". I'll remind you again:

    You watched Joe Faust be banned by Jack Axaopoulos and you did nothing.

There are only three people referenced in that sentence, and none of them are "Bob". All of your references to me are misdirections to avoid that central fact. That sentence stands on its own, and you cannot justify it by pointing your finger at others.

[JoeF]

Miscellaneous notes:

Of course, not everyone has the same frame of reference for moral principles and ethics.
Just how large is a "community"? Are there any objective principles that transcend small community and reference all communities of humans? Is it valuable to find out if there are any objective moral principles that cover all human communities? Suppose there are universal moral principles; in such case, does it matter whether or not an individual aligns with such principles or misaligns? How much might it matter? Are there consequences for one's actions?

Are hang gliding communities exempt from the supposed moral principles and consequences from actions therein? It might be profitable to see if community members in hang gliding might see if consensus could be reached about some possible fundamental questions. If everything is subjective and there are no transcendent moral principles, then fuss about differences among actions might be silly use of one's time and effort. However, if actions have consequences that exhibit dependable form for the process, then it might be worth the effort for the hang gliding community to get clear about actions and consequences.

In same vein, can members of a community ask other members of the community for help (lift a log, clear the weeds, hold the wires, write a letter, join a cause, listen, consider, join energies, join dollars, send information, like a post, buy a wing, retrieve HG, etc. (billions of potential helps among members of a community). Yes, no, maybe, later yes, always no, silence, no answer, delayed answer, sometimes, yes but ..., no but ..., ...s. Are there consequences in joining forces for a cause, project, task? Are there consequences for one's answers to quests by others in the community?

sg chose 100% not to answer his forms or emails relative to some members of the hang gliding community. That is his choice. If actions have consequences, then his choice is an action and will have consequences; he may not appreciate all the consequences of his actions, but the consequences will occur despite his appreciation. sg's action to publicly lie under another person's name by altering published text probably has consequences that he might not appreciate or care about. Persons so treated by sg may or may choose to sue sg for such actions as has been described historically with evidence; choosing not to sue is an action that has consequences; choosing to sue would have consequences; one may weigh the two paths or other alternative paths for efficiency or effect. World may not be simple.

Not everyone holds to these:
While one human still suffers, all still suffer.
What one does even to the least of humans is done to the Community of humans.

How one spends his or her coins or time or mind space or heart space or attention seems to matter. Not everyone is circumspect about what flows. Spontaneity differences abound among humans. How one forms the next decision to act varies greatly among humans. Just how much each person takes responsibility for what occurs over and in them varies; some take 100% responsibility and others at the other end blame something or someone for almost everything that happens to oneself; what is the real existential case on such?

The wide community holds many calls for coordination, cooperation, teaming, joining; one has not time to join all of the flows; one or a few flows seem to fill a life. "I would like to help, but I am booked up on other causes; thank you!" or "I am booked solid, I do not even have time to appreciate what you are asking of me! Sorry, be well, bye." Indeed, there are so many calls and invitations for helps, that one human cannot even know a title for all of them, let alone study and join or then not join the helping flows. Leaders of causes may or may not have the joining response they want. Joiners of a cause may wish more would join in order to lower the load per each person. How well do we respect the complexity of others as they carve out their unique set of decisions?

The hang gliding community has its factions for many different reasons and causes. There need not be just one flavor of "hang gliding." E.g. a faction in HG community may focus on mild-slope tri-plane hang gliding with no interest in the wider hang gliding community.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Joe, thank you for your excellent thoughts. Your first paragraph asks all the right questions:

Miscellaneous notes:

Of course, not everyone has the same frame of reference for moral principles and ethics.
Just how large is a "community"? Are there any objective principles that transcend small community and reference all communities of humans? Is it valuable to find out if there are any objective moral principles that cover all human communities? Suppose there are universal moral principles; in such case, does it matter whether or not an individual aligns with such principles or misaligns? How much might it matter? Are there consequences for one's actions?

I think the answer to many of those questions is found in the Golden Rule:

    "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

As humans, we are not all identical, but we do share a tremendous amount of similarity.

• None of us like to be bullied, so we should not tolerate the bullying of others.
• None of us like to be silenced, so we should not tolerate the silencing of others.
• None of us like to be isolated, so we should not tolerate the isolation of others.

Frank and Tom and Michael have violated all of those corollaries of the Golden Rule. They have not only allowed something to be done to Joe Faust that they wouldn't want done to them, but they've continued to support the perpetrator of those abuses.

The last question you asked was about consequences for actions. Those who believe in afterlives will feel comforted that justice will ultimately be done. But for those who want to improve things in this world, we must bring the consequences. That's where Frank and Tom and Michael have failed us. They continually cite Jack's rights to do what he wants, but they conveniently omit their own rights (and obligations) to oppose Jack's abuses through their own condemnation. They are looking for a loop hole in the Golden Rule, but there's none to be found.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This is a post that I wrote in response to Frank's Christmas present post a few pages back. I actually posted it then (on Christmas day), but then I felt it was too harsh so I rewrote it from scratch (see my Christmas day reply to Frank). After a few days of thinking about it, I still think this post is a bit harsh. But I also think it's worth saying. Here it is:

This battle of the forums is utterly stupid! Let HG.org be HG.org and US Hawks be US Hawks!

Right. As long as it's not your ox being gored.

I don't give a flying fu*k who is banned from HG.org

Right. As long as it's not you.

STOP THE BATTLE OF THE FORUMS NOW!

Right. I dare you to say that where it needs to be said. I dare you to say that to the person banning your friends.


Let's review ...

• Jack bans Joe (and many others) for no good reason.
• The U.S. Hawks hasn't banned Joe ... or even Jack!
• Yet you'll cuss us out while tip toeing around Jack?

If you want to be consistent, then maybe you should go cuss out the person doing all the banning. But you won't do that because you're afraid he'll ban ... you.

So you end up rewarding Jack for his bad behavior and then wonder why we have such a screwed up sport where we can't even talk to each other.

You say it will live or die on its own merits. That's not true. History has shown us that monopolies often become more powerful and abusive until they are actively dismantled. That's why we have anti-trust laws.

You say it's a private organization. But so is the Ku Klux Klan. Do you find moral equivalence between the KKK and say ... the Sierra Club? Do you give the KKK your support? What would you think of someone who supported the KKK to further their own agenda?

Look Frank, you don't want to give up your ability to further your agenda by posting on hanggliding.org, but you don't seem to care if that same fate befalls others - as long as it's not you. If that's the legacy you want to leave, then go ahead. You use the "private ownership" line that Jack spews, but that doesn't justify you hanging around in "Jack's private living room" after seeing your friend of 40 years get bullied out of it.

Frank, I'm sorry. I know you didn't ask to find such a mess in the sport that you founded. I wish that it wasn't that way and that we could all just go fly. I've been fighting to fix this along with other good men like Joe and Bill and Scott and Sam and many others. None of us wanted to have to deal with this mess, but we've stepped up to do it because we care about hang gliding and we care about fairness to each other. If you really care about those same things, then your choice is clear. Join us and let's fix this mess for future generations. Jack's little monopoly isn't the whole problem, but it's a big part of it.

[Bob Kuczewski]

By the way, this topic was on the track of discussing Frank's efforts to reinstate Joe Faust (see original post) until Red chimed in with his "all about Bob" diversions. I predict he'll try that again, and I'll try (harder) to keep that from happening ... again.

If you read this topic from the start (maybe just skim it), please note where Red chimed in and note the issues that were left unaddressed due to Red's diversions. Red likes to complain about "manipulation", but I think he's actually quite masterful at it. I'm disappointed in Red's conduct, but I understand that he's desperately trying to shake the guilt from his back. His approach of attacking the messenger isn't helping in that regard. Red would be better off taking Joe's advice and posting this to hanggliding.org:

Sg, unban Scott and Bob and Joe and probably some others, alter your policies severely or else such is the last posting of this poster.

Red could still take Joe's advice ... but I predict he won't.

[brianscharp]

Red could still take Joe's advice ... but I predict he won't.

Why not start with your other BOD members, who are still able to post there?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Red could still take Joe's advice ... but I predict he won't.

Why not start with your other BOD members, who are still able to post there?

Some people choose not to post there at all. That's a respectable position because it doesn't feed the abuser or the abuse. If you read Frank's post today about Little Norco you'll see an example of the kinds of "happy happy" posts that give Jack the power to abuse others.

My criticism is directed at those who feed this dysfunctional situation while not using their voice to speak up against the abuses.

[brianscharp]

Some people choose not to post there at all. That's a respectable position because it doesn't feed the abuser or the abuse.

How about the BOD members who are current members there and just haven't posted recently? So to your analogy, is it a respectable position to be a card carrying kkk member, as long as you're currently silent?

[Bob Kuczewski]

How about the BOD members who are current members there and just haven't posted recently? So to your analogy, is it a respectable position to be a card carrying kkk member, as long as you're currently silent?

A forum lives or dies by participation. Being a silent member doesn't feed the abuser or the abuse.

Besides, they may just be keeping their powder dry.   

You might argue that Frank and the others are biding their time as they gain more forum credibility and then they'll "lower the boom". You might even say that my public criticism is helping them gain that credibility.

Conspiracy theories are notoriously difficult to prove ... or disprove.   

[Red]

Frank, Michael, and any other pilots that BobK wants to be his puppet mouthpieces,

FAIR WARNING:

IMHO, BobK wants any pilots who post on HG.ORG to stop posting there. If you refuse to obey BobK's wishes, his plan then will be to get you banned from there by convincing you to spout BobK's invective on HG.ORG as if it was really your words. Jack knows a shill there when he sees one, so if you try to "help out" the people Jack has banned, you will get banned as well. I would suggest that you just post as you please, where you please, and simply ignore BobK's false morality about this entire issue. Nobody will die as a result, despite any dire warnings from BobK. All of that nonsense is really just a tempest-in-a-teapot. Put the lid back on it, and walk away. It may churn and froth and storm in there, but it doesn't matter at all in the real world.

BobK has harrassed me for more than a year by email and PM to do his bidding, and when he came up empty, he then took the whole mess public here. He wants to publicly shame people who do not obey the mighty BobK, and he uses all sorts of insults and innuendo to try to do that. It is not my duty, nor the duty of anybody else, to dictate to other forum owners about the running of their own private forums. Anybody who has followed my postings here for the last little while can easily understand that BobK simply cannot accept NO for an answer. I have tried to be reasonable against his vitriol, but I see no need to be polite any longer.

To Scott:
My apologies, for trying to fix this mess here. I probably said too many words, so please chalk that up to an excess of independent thought. I am nobody's puppet mouthpiece, and I refuse to shill for BobK on another forum. I hoped things would calm down after a bit, but every refusal to follow BobK's orders just made him more savage and unfriendly. You can see, he has taken to SHOUTING lately, which means that he is completely out of arguments, even bad ones. BobK will probably continue with his venom-spitting alone, but I can't do much about that.