[Bob Kuczewski]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I just got off from work, and I have yet another hang gliding related court appointment in the morning that I need to prepare for. So I apologize that I've got my mind on other matters tonight, and I don't want to respond hastily to your thoughtful comments.

So let me just ask for your thoughts on this question: If any other member of this forum (Rick or Warren or Bill or Red or Scott or Frank or literally anyone) had created the identical topics and posts, do you think the reaction (from Rick and Frank and Red and Michael and everyone else) would have been the same? For example, do you think that Rick would have left if Frank had put up same the wall of shame topic?

And if so, then should we place some constraints on what we can say here? How would such constraints be adjudicated and enforced?

I apologize that my reply doesn't really address your specific points, but I would like everyone to think about this aspect of the issue. Part of that deliberation should consider whether I am allowed to post my own opinions or whether my status as the site owner/operator precludes me from such posting. I know that Rick willingly posted on paraglidingforum against all kinds of "yahoos" who attacked him constantly. He didn't leave until they banned him. What's the difference here? The fundamental question is whether the U.S. Hawks really is an organization of rules and independent Directors who deliberate them or is the U.S. Hawks just a reflection of "Bob"? I have done my best to make it the former, but maybe the perception of the latter is still strong. Thoughts on this subject are very important to me.

Thanks for your time, and I'll try to add more after tomorrow.

[Free]

For example, do you think that Rick would have left if Frank had put up same the wall of shame topic?

The issue I'm talking about is when you threatened to put Frank, and then Red, on the wall of shame for not charging the hill in a suicide attack on Jack's little pillbox of censorship. The outcome of that seemed obvious to them and they declined the honor. I can't fault them so much for that. To make them enemies equal to Jack Axaopolous' censorship and lies is wrong.

Rick's departure over the wall of shame was a wholly different issue. If Rick wasn't going to post in Jack's living room anyway, why didn't he charge up the hill on his path to 'walk away'. He could have gone out in a blaze of glory instead of just slinking out quietly where no one noticed.

And if so, then should we place some constraints on what we can say here? How would such constraints be adjudicated and enforced?

The only constraint should be of putting friends who disagree with your tactics on the same wall of shame as the anti-hang gliding, Jack Axaopolous.

I apologize that my reply doesn't really address your specific points, but I would like everyone to think about this aspect of the issue. Part of that deliberation should consider whether I am allowed to post my own opinions or whether my status as the site owner/operator precludes me from such posting.

This question is totally off base to my specific point that you lost your legitimate target and turned your fire on comrades.
When that happened it should not have been a surprise when you started to get return fire.

I know that Rick willingly posted on paraglidingforum against all kinds of "yahoos" who attacked him constantly. He didn't leave until they banned him. What's the difference here? The fundamental question is whether the U.S. Hawks really is an organization of rules and independent Directors who deliberate them or is the U.S. Hawks just a reflection of "Bob"? I have done my best to make it the former, but maybe the perception of the latter is still strong. Thoughts on this subject are very important to me.

Rick's departure is all on Rick. I didn't see you attack him like you went after Frank and Red. I never saw a legitimate argument from Rick how anything was destroyed by poking the stick of derision at Jack Axaopolous' exclusionary message board/coffee shop. I say, refocus on legitimate targets like Jack and Doug Marley and find a better course of action to bring comrades along.

I barely missed going to Vietnam to fight a war I didn't understand. Signed up for 4 years in the Air Force to avoid 18 months of rice paddies and jungle insanity. More time versus more risk. I was married and had a union job to come back to if I survived. This is a little off track but the Air Force made me take another physical just weeks after I had passed the Army draft physical A1 or 1A, whatever it was. I was about a week away from Texas boot camp and I thought crap. I'll miss another trip for pay at work before I take a real cut in pay. Out of about 150 fellow inductees, the AF flunked me. Said they could still get me in the AF, but I would have to sign a "waiver" and also let Army doctors operate on me. I passed on that offer.
There was nothing wrong with me that any doctor has found since that required an operation.

One guy I worked with years later, and this is what I'm getting at, was in Vietnam in the final year or so. Vietnam didn't end like we were told.

Privates with a year in the jungle had more to do with the war ending than anything else because they just refused to carry out orders. When they were ordered to take point down a jungle trail they turned their guns on their new green leader and said f no. Court martial, they didn't care. The mission wasn't worth the sacrifice. The war ended just like it was going to end even if they had followed orders. It just ended a little sooner.

Not exactly the same, but you were ordering Red and Frank to take the point down a booby trapped trail. It just didn't work the way you wanted. It's time for a different approach.

[Bill Cummings]

Bob,
The, “Wall of Shame,” nomenclature was too broad and/or had too much overlap.
When you reached down in the dirt to scoop up the shameful and hold them up to the light of day (internet) you spread you hands too wide. In doing so you thoughtlessly ensnared some US Hawks members. These members should be made whole.

Bob you are honest to a fault. I agree with somewhere above 90% of what you do and or say.

If someone asked me, “Bill, does this dress make my a** look fat?” ---(time out) –

Now before I answer I need to state that I’m not a fashion designer, a beauty queen judge or a trained psychologist. I don’t have to be any of these to know that the self-esteem of the individual asking me this question is way more important than any unschooled opinion I personally could come up with.

But Bob if you and I were talking and someone came into the room and said, “Guys, does this dress make my a** look fat?”
Knowing your proclivities Bob, I would jump out ahead of you with my answer for fear you might say, “No! It’s your fat a** that makes your a** look fat.”

I haven’t answered your direct questions because I know that if I’m drawn into a Socratic Method question and answer session with you, Rick, Frank, or Free (and others.) I lack the articulation to prevail even if I alone was in possession of all the facts and the truth of the matter.

When I first clicked on and read the Wall of Shame thread I said, “Oh SH*T!”
Why that? Because I could see the S. storm coming but couldn’t frame the words.
Bob, I think you took it too far.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Any controversial post or topic is ... well ... controversial.

Controversial means that some people will like it and others won't like it. I think of controversial topics as drawing lines that separate groups of people. The more lines you draw the more separation and fragmentation you end up with. Republican or Democrat, paper or plastic, rigid wing or flex wing, Ginger or Mary Ann ... they can all divide us.

We could avoid such fragmentation by completely staying away from all "controversial" subjects. The first casualty of that particular policy (on the U.S. Hawks) would be all of Rick Masters' paragliding topics. I have gotten lots of complaints that those topics are not about hang gliding and that they alienate both biwingual pilots and biwingual clubs. That's probably true. We have probably lost (or not gained) a number of U.S. Hawks members and clubs who haven't liked those topics. The same could be said about Warren's "Jim Gaar" posts and Brian's anti-Trump posts and maybe even Bill Cummings' "The government lied" posts. There may even be lots of pilots who avoid the U.S. Hawks because there's a lot of "negative anti-USHPA" posts. There's always someone on the other side of any controversial statement. Always.

So if we want to maximize the "popularity contest" rating of the U.S. Hawks, we should only allow happy flying videos ... and maybe puppies. Is that what we want? What would we accomplish with that approach? Wouldn't our site be just a duplicate of USHPA.org?

If we are going to have a site that really grapples with controversial issues, we're going to have to accept that we're not - individually - going to agree with everything that's been posted. We may discuss issues that are divisive and draw lines between us on that issue, but we don't have to let those lines divide us on other issues or as an organization.

The RGSA club is the greatest example I can think of. They are a great club, and they have a very active hang gliding component and a very active paragliding component. Every year I fear that their paragliding members might make a concerted effort to withdraw from the U.S. Hawks because of both USHPA's pressure and Rick's anti-paragliding posts. Last year Frank and I drove all the way to New Mexico to represent the positive aspects of the U.S. Hawks at their annual meeting. We stressed the need for all members of the RGSA to be tolerant of the preferences of other members. They've done a super job of demonstrating that principle. The paragliding members are tolerant that the club is a U.S. Hawks chapter, and the non-USHPA RGSA members are tolerant that the club is a USHPA chapter. They all benefit and haven't had to go their separate ways.

Now some of you have argued that I should be tolerant of actions by Frank, Mike, and Tom that I don't agree with. You may be confusing tolerance and speech. None of them have been banned from the U.S. Hawks. That's tolerance. But being tolerant isn't the same as being silent. Confusing tolerance and free speech has brought us the "political correctness" movement where certain things can't even be uttered without a public lynching. That's actually intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Just as with the RGSA, we have to realize that some members of the U.S. Hawks will say things that we don't like. Red's continual "LYING FRAUD" claims are a good example. There was no "LYING FRAUD", and I really didn't like him repeating that phrase over and over. If I were Jack or Davis or USHPA or even Tad, I might have used my power to silence him. But I didn't. Instead, the community looked into Red's claims of "LYING FRAUD" and determined that there was no "LYING FRAUD" at all. No one was banned. No posts were deleted or defaced or buried. The truth came out because it was given a place where all views could be heard. That's the difference between the U.S. Hawks and all the other sites ... including USHPA itself.

As for the wall of shame, it may have been a political blunder for the U.S. Hawks just as allowing open criticism of paragliding may have been a political blunder for the U.S. Hawks. Only time will tell in either case. I really honestly can't say at this point. But one of the truly shining outcomes has been the greater clarity that the U.S. Hawks is not "the Bob club". Many of you have criticized me intensively and repeatedly (and even viciously). Do you think Jack or Davis or Tad or USHPA would have tolerated the kinds of things said about me ... if it were said about them? Just read back through this topic to see the posts by Red and Rick. Does anyone think those posts would be tolerated by any of the "doppleganger" site operators?

For anyone walking away (or thinking about it), please ask yourself where else - in the entire sport of hang gliding - that you've seen that kind of respect for your own free speech. Anywhere? That's what we're building at the U.S. Hawks. On most other sites you have to bite your tongue for years while tip-toeing on eggshells around the moderator's ego. If you do decide to finally speak out, you have to fire your parting shot and quit in the same post because you know you'll be banned instantly anyway. There's no need for "parting shots" here on the U.S. Hawks because there's no need for parting. You can speak your mind on a controversial topic without falling on your sword in the same post. You can get happy in the same pants you got mad in. You can get happy in the same forum and even the same topic that you got mad in. You may not be used to that because it's not very common. But give it some time. It may grow on you.

That's what we're building here. It gives everyone (including me) the ability to speak what we believe. We can all be critical of others and still be willing to work together on other issues at the same time. Tolerance goes both ways, and if you're going to leave the U.S. Hawks because of anything that "Bob Kuczewski" says or does, then you really haven't understood what the U.S. Hawks is all about. Give it some time. Think it over. Discuss it openly and freely. Find good solutions. That IS what the U.S. Hawks is all about.

Thanks for your time.

[Bill Cummings]

I hope that someone like Red, Frank or any US Hawks member that hasn't been banned at hg.org. could find out if I'm still listed as a member
at that website.

Years back, and I can't remember when it was, I stopped posting there. I'd like to know when my last visit (post) was.
Here at the hawks I made a Snipping Tool capture of the information after I clicked on my name. (Shown below)

Last visited and Joined.JPG (35.61 KiB) Viewed 4469 times

This shows my current information here at the US Hawks.
From time to time when someone here would put up a link to the hg.org I'd click on it to see what exactly they were talking about.
Sometimes at that website you had to sign in to view video or JPG. A temptation on sg's part to gain log-in's.
When that happened I would just close the page and leave without logging on. If I remember correctly I haven't posted at hg.org since about
2010 or 2011.
Once I saw how corrupt sg was I voted with my feet (fingers) and promised myself I would not log in again.
Maybe that website is like the US Hawks and has my history dates tabulated like is shown at the US Hawks.
I was thinking that it did keep stats and it was important to me that anyone that was researching my patronage would find that
I hadn't been back in years. If I signed in myself to find what my stats were it might show that I'm an up to date patron of that
disreputable website. Something that would not make me happy.

There were different times that once directed there from the US Hawks I saw discussions about towing questions and I had the answers.
It was tough not logging on but fought the temptation. It was a matter of principal for me. I'd have no part in it so I went to the US Hawks
after first careful lurking and vetting Bob K. I signed in here.

[JoeF]

Bill:

left ear in men usually worse.
by Bill Cummings ¦ Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:11 pm ¦ Forum: Hang gliding general ¦ Topic: flytec very quiet ¦ Replies: 12 ¦ Views: 2375
I once read where men over 30 generally have reduced hearing in their left ear. The Idea was that years of driving with the driver’s (Left side in USA) window down caused hearing loss due to the steady wind roar at highway speeds. Probably it was all BS but maybe there was something to it. My ...

[Bill Cummings]

Thanks Joe.

[Bob Kuczewski]

It was a matter of principal for me. I'd have no part in it so I went to the US Hawks after first careful lurking and vetting Bob K.

Thanks Bill.

I think the U.S. Hawks forum has the best moderation record in the sport of hang gliding. I am very careful to separate my duties as a moderator from my views as a member. I think that's where other forum operators have failed the sport and their members. They've let their personal views seep into their moderation power. That's a bad mixture.

I think the people who've recently left the U.S. Hawks have incorrectly equated the U.S. Hawks with "Bob Kuczewski". I don't think they'd have made such a fuss if any other member had put up a "wall of shame". Indeed some of our other members have done that to varying degrees.

Being a moderator should NOT give me any more rights here than anyone else. But it should not give me any less rights either. Furthermore, we have an Advisory Board of Directors where any member can bring up any issue - including moderation requests. I don't know of any other national hang gliding forum with that level of oversight and due process. That's also what we're building here at the U.S. Hawks and I salute all of our volunteer Board Members who've participated.

[Free]

Any controversial post or topic is ... well ... controversial.

Controversial means that some people will like it and others won't like it. I think of controversial topics as drawing lines that separate groups of people. The more lines you draw the more separation and fragmentation you end up with. Republican or Democrat, paper or plastic, rigid wing or flex wing, Ginger or Mary Ann ... they can all divide us.

Attacking FC and TH is not the same as R or D or Ginger or Mary Ann. Attacking them was/is a strategic blunder.
If they attacked you viciously against your right to put Jack Axaopolous on any list you wanted, you could criticize that.
The Wall of Shame (PC) controversy is a whole different thing than a strategy of attacking Red & Frank for not doing something you want them to do.
Those two things are quite different and they are certainly not paper or plastic.

We could avoid such fragmentation by completely staying away from all "controversial" subjects. The first casualty of that particular policy (on the U.S. Hawks) would be all of Rick Masters' paragliding topics. I have gotten lots of complaints that those topics are not about hang gliding and that they alienate both biwingual pilots and biwingual clubs. That's probably true. We have probably lost (or not gained) a number of U.S. Hawks members and clubs who haven't liked those topics. The same could be said about Warren's "Jim Gaar" posts and Brian's anti-Trump posts and maybe even Bill Cummings' "The government lied" posts. There may even be lots of pilots who avoid the U.S. Hawks because there's a lot of "negative anti-USHPA" posts. There's always someone on the other side of any controversial statement. Always.

None of those things are the same as attacking TH and FC.
Brian's anti'-Trump post are a combination of ignorance, misinformation/brainwashing and delusion that culminates in mass hysteria disorder know as Trump derangement syndrome. He's not totally responsible for what he thinks or writes because he's not aware that his mind has been poisoned with chemicals, lies and misinformation.
My anti-blindrodie post are not an attack for something he refused to do for me. My anti-post are against what he did to me.
See the difference?

So if we want to maximize the "popularity contest" rating of the U.S. Hawks, we should only allow happy flying videos ... and maybe puppies. Is that what we want? What would we accomplish with that approach? Wouldn't our site be just a duplicate of USHPA.org?

Well that might be the PC approach. That was Rick's thing, right?
Rick was no Sun Tzu and in Jack's living room it is all about kittens instead of puppies.

If we are going to have a site that really grapples with controversial issues, we're going to have to accept that we're not - individually - going to agree with everything that's been posted. We may discuss issues that are divisive and draw lines between us on that issue, but we don't have to let those lines divide us on other issues or as an organization.

All for that.

Now some of you have argued that I should be tolerant of actions by Frank, Mike, and Tom that I don't agree with. You may be confusing tolerance and speech. None of them have been banned from the U.S. Hawks. That's tolerance. But being tolerant isn't the same as being silent. Confusing tolerance and free speech has brought us the "political correctness" movement where certain things can't even be uttered without a public lynching. That's actually intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Tolerance is not what I've argued but you could be a little more tolerant of what they are willing to sacrifice.
Most 84 year olds probably don't wish to exercise the same warrior offensive as a younger hardened Ranger might.
A hardened Ranger should easily tolerate that.

Just as with the RGSA, we have to realize that some members of the U.S. Hawks will say things that we don't like. Red's continual "LYING FRAUD" claims are a good example. There was no "LYING FRAUD", and I really didn't like him repeating that phrase over and over. If I were Jack or Davis or USHPA or even Tad, I might have used my power to silence him. But I didn't. Instead, the community looked into Red's claims of "LYING FRAUD" and determined that there was no "LYING FRAUD" at all. No one was banned. No posts were deleted or defaced or buried. The truth came out because it was given a place where all views could be heard. That's the difference between the U.S. Hawks and all the other sites ... including USHPA itself.

Red is no spring chicken either. You pressured him until he cracked. You wanted him in a fighting mode and you got it.
He went after the most immediate source of conflict and that was you. He went full street fight in a linguistic kind of way.
He said he didn't want to fight but you kept goading him. I doubt he was Ranger trained either.

As for the wall of shame, it may have been a political blunder for the U.S. Hawks just as allowing open criticism of paragliding may have been a political blunder for the U.S. Hawks.

You are conflating three things here. The criticism was for your attack on Red, Frank and to a lesser amount, Michael. And it was a
STRATEGIC blunder and it was not about the wall of shame.
Rick Masters might have claimed the wall of shame was a political blunder but again, he is no Sun Tzu.
STRATEGIC blunder is like you airstrike your own forces. You were dropping bombs on Frank and Red.
Readjust your target coordinates soldier, is what I was saying.

But one of the truly shining outcomes has been the greater clarity that the U.S. Hawks is not "the Bob club". Many of you have criticized me intensively and repeatedly (and even viciously). Do you think Jack or Davis or Tad or USHPA would have tolerated the kinds of things said about me ... if it were said about them? Just read back through this topic to see the posts by Red and Rick. Does anyone think those posts would be tolerated by any of the "doppleganger" site operators?

Probably not. I am particularly proud of the way you allow and handle criticism.
It is commendable and quite different than the cowardice of Jack Axaopolous or the ruthlessness that motivates Davis Straub.

For anyone walking away (or thinking about it), please ask yourself where else - in the entire sport of hang gliding - that you've seen that kind of respect for your own free speech. Anywhere?

Nowhere in hang gliding. You are it. Thank you.

That's what we're building at the U.S. Hawks. On most other sites you have to bite your tongue for years while tip-toeing on eggshells around the moderator's ego. If you do decide to finally speak out, you have to fire your parting shot and quit in the same post because you know you'll be banned instantly anyway. There's no need for "parting shots" here on the U.S. Hawks because there's no need for parting. You can speak your mind on a controversial topic without falling on your sword in the same post. You can get happy in the same pants you got mad in. You can get happy in the same forum and even the same topic that you got mad in. You may not be used to that because it's not very common. But give it some time. It may grow on you.

That's what we're building here. It gives everyone (including me) the ability to speak what we believe. We can all be critical of others and still be willing to work together on other issues at the same time. Tolerance goes both ways, and if you're going to leave the U.S. Hawks because of anything that "Bob Kuczewski" says or does, then you really haven't understood what the U.S. Hawks is all about. Give it some time. Think it over. Discuss it openly and freely. Find good solutions. That IS what the U.S. Hawks is all about.

Thanks for your time.

This is exactly what needs to come out of this. This is the one site that allows free speech.
Its the free speech alternative. Its the free association alternative.
It's the alternative to the u$hPa, that is showing signs of irrelevance if not death throws.
The USHAWKS is a new beginning. A really good idea whose time has come.
But it's still bad strategy to shoot your supporters because they may not have your warrior spirit.
Not everybody gets that DARPA chip in the brain. (joke)

Anyway, this rabbit trail has taken us away from the original goal.
Joe's reinstatement didn't work because Jack Axaopolous wasn't man enough to correct a wrong.
Publicity is what was lost and publicity is what is needed to overcome that loss.
How about targeted ads that we could all donate to?
We need to get back on track on what started this whole thing.
None of us are getting any younger.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Warren,

I'm not going to argue the point as to whether my shaming was strategically or tactically wise or unwise. Only time will make that determination.

But I will say that I've worked to make the U.S. Hawks fair for everyone. Everyone here has just as much a right to criticize me as I have to criticize them - no more and no less.

That's what we've built here and I've faced whatever criticism has come my way. I have tried very hard to ensure that my voice is no more valuable than yours or Frank's or Rick's or Red's just because I happened to have set up the site. I want the U.S. Hawks to belong equally to all of us - a true community resource.

I am disappointed that anyone would leave this community just because they didn't like any thing I might have said or done. Jack has always said "treat the moderator like anyone else", but unlike Jack, I've really meant it. I've walked the walk. So anyone leaving because of "Bob" has somehow missed the most critical point and purpose of this entire U.S. Hawks effort. It boggles my mind that some of them could have been here for the better part of a decade and not figured that out yet.   

But we will continue on with our mission to promote, protect, and serve recreational hang gliding. People will come and people will go. Some will come back and others won't. Either way, we'll continue to write the history of this effort with each and every post.

I salute everyone who participates.  
I triple salute everyone who takes a licking and keeps on ticking.