[Bill Cummings]

That sounds like moderation with fairness in mind Joe.
Jack (sg) and Davis each have years of constantly demonstrating
that fairness will not be allowed to interfere with their point
of view.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Jack (sg) and Davis each have years of constantly demonstrating
that fairness will not be allowed to interfere with their point
of view.

Davis just confirmed that you are right Bill:

The answer is no and will continue to be no. You have your own forums and you are invited to stay there. My purpose in the Oz Report forum is a place to discuss Oz report articles.

That's pretty clear. The purpose of the Oz Forum is to talk about Oz articles. And who writes Oz articles? Only Davis. So the Oz Forum is admittedly only about what Davis wants to talk about. Davis, Davis, Davis. If Davis doesn't want to talk about any topic, then it can't be discussed. Period.

Unfortunately, the same is true of hanggliding.org (and even worse).

This is one of the biggest things that has been killing the sport of hang gliding. There is no place where everyone can work together to address the problems that we face - other than the U.S. Hawks. Jack and Davis and USHPA all know this, and that's why they are so desperate (and I mean really desperate) to shut us down.

Davis, by the way, has betrayed himself in his reply to Joe. Davis wrote "You have your own forums and you are invited to stay there". If that were really what Davis wanted then he would not object to Joe posting:

"Anyone who wants to discuss what we can't discuss here is invited to join us at ushawks.org."

In fact, Davis should post that himself - in prominent view. But he doesn't because it's not what he really wants. Davis wants his captive audience to talk only about the topics that Davis decides.

[JoeF]

FinalRequest.JPG (108.78 KiB) Viewed 4102 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

I think Joe has checkmated Davis on the "Why? Why? Why?" topic.

Both Davis and Jack like to pretend that they ban people, lock topics, delete and/or modify posts for the good of their forums. They both also complain that such moderation is a terrible burden on them (boo hoo).

They have both also suggested that people take unwanted discussions to some other forum. But if they were being truthful about really wanting people to have those discussions on some other forum, wouldn't they actually suggest such a forum - with a link - to make it easy for people to actually go there?

Checkmate.

Joe suggested that any locked topics might simply contain a link to the U.S. Hawks for continued discussion of the unwanted topic. Then pilots could go there to discuss the things that Davis and Jack don't want on their own forums. Problem solved, and everyone is happy ... right?

No, not right. Neither Davis nor Jack will do that because while they might say "take it to some other forum", they really don't want that. They really want to kill off the discussion of the topic itself and maintain control of what pilots can know and think.

Actions speak louder than words. Checkmate.

Nicely done Joe!!!

         

[Free]

Michael Grisham, writes the following on a heavily censored commercial web forum:

Re: Why? Why? Why? Tue, Aug 6 2019, 9:16:02 pm
Why? Because Davis is the owner of the Oz Report.

Why? Because Davis is the publisher of the Oz Report.

Why? Because Davis is the editor of the Oz Report.

Why? Because Davis is legally responsible for the content on the Oz Report.

Why? Because Davis pays for the bandwidth for the Oz Report.

Why? Because Davis decides what the Oz Report is and isn’t.

That is the right of the freedom of the press since the First Amendment was adopted by the United States of America on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. That is the way it is in this country period.

Joe Faust exercises those same rights on his websites and forums:

JoeF wrote:
I move for the Board of Advisors to have (name withheld)'s post space be only in the non-RHG section of the forum.

JoeF wrote:
Freedom has responsibilities. There is an off-topic freedom of speech section. Be well. Be right to all. Lift, Joe.

JoeF wrote:
To clarify, the tiny corner of the USA called ******* forum has very many sections in it as a gift of a limited-funded recreational hang glider pilot. Most of the sections of the forum are for a focus on recreational hang gliding. The billions of issues in the world do not form the focus of a constrained place to deal with recreational hang gliding.
. . . . .
Losing focus and having no moderation constraints for a fine-tuned-focused recreational forum allows destroyers to fill up the limited-time-space that focused visitors have. RHG (recreational hang gliding) visitors time-and-attention budget is limited;

The Rainbow Bridge

Joe Faust are you going to allow on your website and forums open discussion on a person’s right to fly paragliders?

Joe Faust are you going to allow on your website and forums open discussion on the Recreational Hang Gliding LGBTQ community?

Joe Faust are you going to allow on your website and forums open discussion on a Woman Hang Glider Pilot’s Pro-Choice view of abortion because she does not choose to fly in the prone position while pregnant?

Joe Faust has already given us the answer. Joe Faust bans and restricts speech on his websites and forums on issues he does not support, which is his right as publisher and editor, the same as Davis.

Davis chooses to focus on competition and world record hang gliding/paragliding along with subjects affecting those venues, which is his right.

Honor his right.
Michael Grisham
magentabluesky

[Free]

Ok, so I've been away for awhile. Sorry that I have missed so much including some personal emails.
With great disappointment I read Mike Grishams post above. Can he push his nose up Davis' rear end any further?
I don't think so but I never thought a lot of things would happen, that did. So disappointed in how low so many hg pilots have become.
Maybe I was naive to begin with, in ever thinking hg pilots were a cut above the average dolt.

What about that lawsuit you were working on, Michael? Fill us in with your fake Constitutional theory.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael Grisham has unfortunately painted himself into a corner on this issue. All of Michael's arguments are about what is legal for Jack and Davis to do. Michael can't seem to understand that the law only sets the lowest bar on human behavior. The law sets the threshold at which our otherwise free society will actually step in and take your money, your freedom, and possibly your life.

Michael doesn't understand that there are behaviors (such as recent actions by Jack and Davis) that are not illegal, but deserving of rebuke by the community. Racism is a perfect example. People are perfectly free to harbor racist attitudes and even make racist decisions in their private affairs. The law does not forbid that. But anyone supporting such attitudes and actions (explicitly or implicitly) should expect criticism from their peers.

Michael's post drones on and on about the legal rights that Davis has. No one is arguing that Davis doesn't have those legal rights. What people are arguing is whether the community should silently support the actions by Davis (and Jack) without protest. I believe Michael is capable of understanding this on an intellectual level, but he can't or won't admit it because it places a burden of responsibility on him that he does not want to accept.

[Bob Kuczewski]

One more thought ...

All social animals operate by systems of implicit laws. These unwritten laws apply to the full spectrum of behavior from minor infractions to the most heinous acts possible. Those unwritten laws are enforced naturally and organically by the entire social structure of those animals.

Humans have gone a step further and codified portions of these natural laws into written law. We started with simple systems of written law such as the "Ten Commandments" and have continually piled more and more "undesired behavior" into written law. This is the trend that Michael's arguments support. Michael is arguing that the only valid form of social pressure must come from written law. The ultimate result would be a system of written laws that very very tightly defines every aspect of our lives. That's the road we're on, and it is the opposite of the freedom that Michael claims to want.

As with Michael's beloved Part 103, the only valid alternative to increasingly burdensome written law is meaningful self regulation. In the world of hang gliding forums, this means that the community must push back on practices that the community deems to be unacceptable. That "push back" includes speaking out in protest or voting with your feet. Michael has refused to do either in the bannings of Joe and now Swift.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This topic was started over 10 years ago (back in 2011) after I saw this post by Robert Moore on hanggliding.org:

"Our strength is in the electronic media." ... "where we keep ourselves updated, educated, and entertained." ... "where no editor can wave us away."

Unfortunately, remmoore was wrong about the "no editor can wave us away" part. The current electronic hang gliding media (http://hanggliding.org and http://ozreport.com) are exactly the places where single individuals can wave anyone away. Jack and Davis can silence anyone they don't like, and they have both done so repeatedly.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Jack Axaopoulos continues to change people's posts to this very day so he can continue to split the hang gliding community with his "iron curtain" of "inmates" at hanggliding.org.

Here are the latest examples.

Chris McKeon is one of the most enthusiastic hang gliding pilots I have ever known. He really really loves the sport, and he wants to spread that love. Chris has started many topics on both the U.S. Hawks and on hanggliding.org. Chris has wanted to share those topics on BOTH forums so more people can participate in those topics. That's exactly the way the World Wide Web was designed to work. The "web" was designed from day one to support seamless navigation from one web site to another.

But Jack Axaopoulos doesn't want people to seamlessly move from hanggliding.org to certain other sites (like the U.S. Hawks). So Jack has programmed his web site to automatically change everyone's posts that refer to sites that Jack doesn't like. Let's look at two very recent examples. Here's the first example:

On Saturday December 11, 2021 12:13 pm, Chris started a topic on hanggliding.org titled "PHOENIX PILOT I WILL BE, RALLY?". Here's the link to his topic:

       https://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic ... 66#p411466

Now in that topic, Chris posted this link to the U.S. Hawks:

       https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... 041#p30753

But after Chris posted his link, Jack's software automatically changed it to this link:

       https://http//torreyhawksforum.org.org/ ... 041#p30753

If you click on the original link posted by Chris, you'll find that it goes to his topic here on ushawks.org as Chris intended. But if you click on the link changed by Jack's software, it will go somewhere else - wherever Jack Axaopoulos wants it to go. It's disgusting for Jack to do that to Chris.

Here's another recent example.

On Saturday December 11, 2021 10:36 pm,, Chris started a topic on hanggliding.org titled "TOO TIGHT IS NOT TOO RIGHT". Here's the link to his topic:

       https://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic ... 69#p411469

Now in that topic, Chris posted this link to the U.S. Hawks:

       https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... =30#p30758

But after Chris posted his link, Jack's software automatically changed it to this link:

       https://http//torreyhawksforum.org.org/ ... =30#p30758

If you click on the original link posted by Chris, you'll find that it goes to his topic here on ushawks.org as Chris intended. But if you click on the link changed by Jack's software, it will go somewhere else. Again, it is disgusting for Jack to do this to Chris.

Here's what's been changed in both examples:

The links posted by Chris started with this:

       https://ushawks.org/forum/

But Jack Axaopoulos changed it to start with this:

       https://http//torreyhawksforum.org.org/forum/

So why is any of this important?

Different people have different moral standards, and those moral standards are reflected in their behavior. These examples (and many others) clearly demonstrate that Jack Axaopoulos has no regard for what his "inmates" post on his site. In Jack's mind, he OWNS every post on hanggliding.org and he can do whatever he wants with any post. Period. Once you begin posting your valuable information on Jack's web site, Jack OWNS that valuable information ... and Jack OWNS YOU.

That's how Jack OWNS Red. Red has invested a huge part of his adult life posting on hanggliding.org. And yet Jack could wipe it all out in about 30 seconds if Red steps out of line. So Red lives every day in fear that Jack will wipe out decades of Red's life energy (and lots of good advice) if Red dares to cross him. And yet Red continues to give Jack more power over him with every post. It's sad, because I like Red. But Red is now owned by Jack. The same is true (to a lesser degree) of almost everyone who posts there. They all step lightly or they're gone. It's sad to watch good men slowly giving up their freedom of speech with every post. It's like watching the progression of an alcoholic or a junkie as they take each additional drink or fix. They are all being owned.