[Bob Kuczewski]

Whenever an organization gets involved in giving awards, they become political.

So the Hawks isn't supposed to be political? Sorry, but politics is why I'm here.

Sorry, I meant to say:

Whenever an organization gets involved in giving awards, they (the awards) become political.

I've seen it at USHPA as the Directors (many who were business owners) argued every year to have their own instructors get awards (like "Instructor of the Year", etc). I like the U.S. Hawks to be more grass roots. If you want to give anyone some recognition, please feel empowered to do so. People will join in. Everyone is empowered to participate. If it becomes a tradition, then it does so because it was recognized as being a good thing and NOT just because Bob Kuczewski blessed it.

When I say to treat me like any other member, I mean it. I know that Jack has poisoned that phrase for many people, but I'm not Jack. That's probably the biggest fault I find with Rick and Frank and Red leaving. They falsely equated the U.S. Hawks as being me. The U.S. Hawks is everyone who is able to post here. In a sense, that's actually the largest set of hang glider pilots in the world. It's a larger set than the set that can post on either hanggliding.org or ozreport.com. They've both excluded many more pilots than we've excluded here.

By the way, that reminds me of a question that I've never seen asked and answered: How much money has ever exchanged hands between USHPA and either hanggliding.org or ozreport.com? Does anyone know that?

[Free]

Whenever an organization gets involved in giving awards, they (the awards) become political.

Your strategy should be to get political.
Make statements. Claim your political power.
Endorse USHGRS.

Make the wall of shame mean something and make it prominent on the forum.
To make it mean something you need to differentiate Jack Axaopolous from Frank Colver.

When I say to treat me like any other member, I mean it. I know that Jack has poisoned that phrase for many people, but I'm not Jack. That's probably the biggest fault I find with Rick and Frank and Red leaving. They falsely equated the U.S. Hawks as being me. The U.S. Hawks is everyone who is able to post here. In a sense, that's actually the largest set of hang glider pilots in the world. It's a larger set than the set that can post on either hanggliding.org or ozreport.com. They've both excluded many more pilots than we've excluded here.

Don't treat Frank Colver like Jack Axaopolous. ( and Red and Mike and Rick)
I can, on the other hand, think of someone to be added to a list of scumbaggery equal to that of Jack Axaopolous.
I would not want to equate that scoundrel to the likes of Frank, Red, Mike and Rick.
Now can you see the issue I have in your WOS, as enacted?
Everything is relative.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Don't treat Frank Colver like Jack Axaopolous. ( and Red and Mike and Rick).

You're sitting around a campfire with three "friends". Every one of them watches as a big fat water moccasin slowly slithers up to you from 50 feet away. None of them say a word to you about the danger. You stretch out your arms to yawn, and the snake strikes.

Who should you hold in greater contempt, the snake or your "friends"?

All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

[Free]

Don't treat Frank Colver like Jack Axaopolous. ( and Red and Mike and Rick).

You're sitting around a campfire with three "friends". Every one of them watches as a big fat water moccasin slowly slithers up to you from 50 feet away. None of them say a word to you about the danger. You stretch out your arms to yawn, and the snake strikes.

Who should you hold in greater contempt, the snake or your "friends"?

All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

A truer analogy would be a log across the creek where everybody crosses. People cross back and forth ahead of you just fine but
by the time you cross, water moccasins are stirred up and they bite you.
You survive but now you insist that your friends take a stick and beat the log repeatedly before they cross the creek.
They get bit and die.
Who should you hold in greater contempt, the snake or you?

By the way, a barefoot friend you know was bitten on the foot by a snake in Tennessee.
Some pilots from the north east were there and no one would volunteer to drive down the mountain to take him to the Dunlap hospital.
I was a bit tweeked by alcohol but had to do it. It was not the first time I had driven impaired so it wasn't such a big deal but
who should you hold in greater contempt, the snake or those snakes?

[Bob Kuczewski]

A truer analogy would be ...

Here's the truest analogy. Frank Colver, Tom "Red" Howard, and Mike Grisham were all aware that Joe Faust was being unjustly treated by Jack Axaopoulos ("sg"). They were all aware that Joe's voice was being silenced. And yet they all chose to protect their own ability to "hang out in Jack's living room" rather than stand in solidarity with Joe.

There's no truer analogy ... than the truth.

Moderator's Note:
  The statements in this post should be interpreted as the
  poster's opinions and not as statements of undisputed fact.

[Free]

A truer analogy would be ...

Here's the truest analogy. Frank Colver, Tom "Red" Howard, and Mike Grisham were all aware that Joe Faust was being unjustly treated by Jack Axaopoulos ("sg"). They were all aware that Joe's voice was being silenced.

And there are potentially thousands more with this information. What is your strategy to deal with them?

And yet they all chose to protect their own ability to "hang out in Jack's living room" rather than stand in solidarity with Joe.

I don't see this as one or the other. One shouldn't be forced to commit harikari, at your insistence, in order to demonstrate solidarity.

There's no truer analogy ... than the truth.

And the truth is that your strategy of dealing with the issue is a poor strategy that doesn't really help Joe.
Your view is myopic and your reaction is self defeating.
There is a much greater issue of censorship that is a forest you can't see for the trees.
Selectively shooting at your neighbors to stop the hurricane blowing outside is not a productive strategy to stop the wind.

[Bob Kuczewski]

And there are potentially thousands more with this information. What is your strategy to deal with them?

I would have contacted them all if I'd been able to do so. That's exactly why Jack bans people - to keep them from contacting others and building the critical mass for change in the sport. That's why he and USHPA make such nice bedfellows - they share the same goals.

I don't see this as one or the other. One shouldn't be forced to commit harikari, at your insistence, in order to demonstrate solidarity.

I don't see it as one or the other either. I think the three I've mentioned would have carried enough clout to have swayed enough others to have backed Jack down. In the best case, it would have worked, and Joe would have been reinstated. In the worse case Jack would have banned them all and then Jack would have looked like a real jerk, and many others would have left in solidarity. Either case is better than what we ended up with. But there's no way we'll ever know since they all chickened out. We might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And the truth is that your strategy of dealing with the issue is a poor strategy that doesn't really help Joe.

It was a great strategy ... if it had been carried out.

Your view is myopic and your reaction is self defeating.
There is a much greater issue of censorship that is a forest you can't see for the trees.
Selectively shooting at your neighbors to stop the hurricane blowing outside is not a productive strategy to stop the wind.

It was my view and I think it was neither myopic nor self defeating. My mistake was over-estimating the courage and character of the three involved. I never expected them to all chicken out and let this be done to Joe and USHGRS without speaking up. That was clearly a mistake on my part. I accept that criticsm.

As for the greater issue of censorship, that is exactly the forest that I see as clearly harming the sport of hang gliding. I expected Frank, Red, and Mike to see it also, but they were distracted by the shiney objects of their immediate desire. At this point, I'm just documenting their choices.

[Free]

I don't see it as one or the other either.

It seems you do.

And yet they all chose to protect their own ability to "hang out in Jack's living room" rather than stand in solidarity with Joe.

In your words, they chose one thing: Hanging out in Jack's living room.
Rather than the second thing: Standing in solidarity with Joe.
But reality is that they can stand in solidarity without committing harikari.
You say one or the other, or they are just as bad as Jack Axaopolous, and deserve the same punitive shame dosage as you prescribe Jack Axaopolous.
You want them to commit harikari to be deemed in solidarity with Joe Faust.
I'm sure they ARE in solidarity with Joe Faust but evidently didn't like your logic and strategy of harikari.

I think the three I've mentioned would have carried enough clout to have swayed enough others to have backed Jack down. In the best case, it would have worked, and Joe would have been reinstated. In the worse case Jack would have banned them all and then Jack would have looked like a real jerk, and many others would have left in solidarity. Either case is better than what we ended up with. But there's no way we'll ever know since they all chickened out.
It was a great strategy ... if it had been carried out.

It would have been a great strategy ... if YOU could have carried it off.
Zip. Nada. Didn't happen for whatever reason. You failed to sell the idea.
This is the point where you should have re-evaluated the situation.
Its time to recognize that you are more angry at 3 pilots for not following your orders than 3 pilots for not standing in solidarity with Joe.

Re-evaluate your situation, soldier.
You've lost your target and Joe's story has gotten lost in all this wasted angst.

[Bob Kuczewski]

In your words, they chose one thing: Hanging out in Jack's living room.
Rather than the second thing: Standing in solidarity with Joe.

We will never know now, but I say they could have done both. They chose not to speak for Joe. I call that shameful, and apparently you don't. What else is there to say?

You say one or the other, or they are just as bad as Jack Axaopolous, and deserve the same punitive shame dosage as you prescribe Jack Axaopolous.

No I didn't. Go to the "Wall of Shame" topic and report the font sizes used in each name. Report on whose names appear with most prominence. You'll find Jack at the top. Go ahead and report back to us.

The others have, however, enabled Jack's abuse by continued participation in Jack's forum while not speaking up. That can't be ignored. I find that shameful. Maybe you don't. The only thing that would change my mind would be to find that they've been working behind the scenes to overturn Jack's monopoly. It could be happening, but I've seen no evidence. The evidence at this point is they all backed down at Joe's expense ... and for their own selfish reasons. Give me evidence to the contrary and I'm all ears to hear it.

[Free]

Go to the "Wall of Shame" topic and report the font sizes used in each name. Report on whose names appear with most prominence. You'll find Jack at the top. Go ahead and report back to us.

The report I have for you is 'what an idiot' you are.
Talk about arguing how many pixies can dance on the head of a pin.

I'll bet Frank Colver probably didn't fly with you Sunday at Dockweiller.