by Free » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:24 am
It turns out, in Michael Grisham's case against Bob, facts have been exposed that I was not aware of when I expressed my earlier outburst of frustration. I was arguing one thing while another thing was closer to the truth.
My impression was that Bob was trying to force an action on Michael. To make him do something he didn't want to do that could ultimately diminish
the political reach that Michael Grisham currently possessed. If that was the true picture, Michael was only guilty of not doing something he didn't want to do and my opinion was that it did not rise to the same level of 'shame' as that of Jack Axaopolous, in banning Joe Faust.
What I wasn't aware of, until Michael posted the information, was that Michael was actually defending Jack Axaopolous' shameful actions against Joe Faust.
This is totally different than the apathy of not taking a hypothetical physical action against Jack Axaopolous, at Bob's insistence.
Apathy and indifference is one thing. There is shame in that, but not equal to the same shame as a cowardly Jack Axaopolous in banning Joe Faust.
Jack is such a weak person that his hatred of Bob, Scott and related persons overrides his false stated goal of advancing the sport of hang gliding.
Now that it is clear that Michael Grisham, was actually defending Jack Axaopolous, in a legal sense, of his right to be immoral to Joe Faust, and by extension, all pilots that may benefit from the good work and actions taken by Joe Faust.
In light of this new information I reverse previous opinion expressed in favor of Michael Grisham.
I find it quite shameful to defend the actions of a mini-tyrant like Jack Axaopolous, for whatever reasons, and especially that you may think it is legal and therefore OK. Morals, ethics and honor outweigh legal, and you Michael, have chosen the shameful side of this equation .
The defense of shameful actions is shameful.