Home
But in reviewing the topic, I again noticed Joe's post to the Oz Forum with the topic "Why? Why? Why?". I am somewhat surprised that Davis hasn't deleted that topic yet, so I want to reference some of those posts before he does:
Joe Faust started the topic with this post on August 5th, 2019 at 11:40am:
Joe Faust wrote:Why? Why? Why?
Some pilots participating in HG forums have been conditioned over many years about moderator actions. When the moderator says "no" some participants may freeze up and participate in a constrained fashion, even beyond what might be required. It is noticed that some of our friends are no longer seen in the forums or as much seen; maybe spirits have been stifled or snuffed.
How much should we question matters that bring a reduction of participation? One may not want to be the next target of banning or deletion; and such might lead to quashing some ideas that may be important to put up on the discussion board.
How much loss should the group tolerate silently? Some may silently question: Shall I say something in defense of another pilot? Does one hold back expression in fear of being the next discard?
Silencing pilots doesn't solve problems, so here are my questions:
1. Why have the people who've been banned (or deleted) been banned (or deleted)?
2. Why are we not allowed to mention the people who've been banned (or deleted)?
3. Why are we not allowed to mention certain organizations?
There are valid reasons to mention banned persons and banned organizations. One might learn good things to replicate or bad things to avoid. Furthermore, those people and organizations don't cease to impact hang gliding in potentially positive and negative ways just because we don't talk about them. They don't disappear just because we're not allowed to speak their names.
So why are they forbidden to be mentioned?
Of course the rule might be simply that the owner of the forum likes this or that; and those likes and dislikes could rule for any given forum. But if a forum wants to serve well the large picture of hang gliding community, then maybe the owner-controller could set aside his or her personal likes and dislikes and be governed by larger-than-self principles of communication.
Will Oz Report open its aims to something bigger than the limits set by its owner's set of likes and dislikes? Oz Report in its international interests and competition interests and commercial interests has exhibited some flows that are at odds with what could be needed by a US-RHG focus for forum flow. [RHG :: recreational hang gliding]
Will Jack's forum with its ad focus and international flow fit US-RHG focus? Probably not; and that forum is narrowing to the owner's likes and dislikes instead of what will be needed for US-RHG focus.
However Davis and Jack could let all sectors of the hang gliding community flow well beyond the owners' likes and dislikes.
The sport of hang gliding is very lucky to have Joe Faust. The planet is very lucky to have Joe Faust.
Of course Davis Straub replied with his typical self-centered pomposity:
Davis Straub wrote: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.
So we finally got an explanation as to why the Oz Report forum is "all about Davis" in his own words. Davis writes Oz Report articles, and the forum is just a place to discuss his articles. That sounds like what we have on hanggliding.org where people can only discuss what Jack wants them to discuss.
Ben Reese again showed his solid character with this post:
Ben Reese wrote:Davis wrote: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.
Well then you have your answer, clear and succinct...
Not to serve the greater good of the sport now and future.
To serve the stories published in the OZ Report which mostly come from facebook and other sources of regurgitated news or views..
Original content and leadership in the sport of HG is not fostered as a worthy goal in the design or mission of the OZ forums format..
This would explain the avoidance and lack of controversy sought by its moderator.
There cannot be growth without controversy and you cannot make a Silk Purse out of a Sows Ear.
A very old lesson freely taught by countless examples which have forced the creation of alternatives. Not from spite but from a true need and a vision of what must come...
- Ben_Reese_Silk_Purse.png (153.67 KiB) Viewed 899 times
I hope Davis reconsiders his important role and takes the path of leadership.
The silk purse is in his hands to create, but he must choose to make it...
- Ben_Reese_Bag_small.jpg (90.64 KiB) Viewed 899 times
Most Sincerely,
Ben Reese
Good job Ben!! It's a loss for hang gliding that you've been banned by any of these tin-byte dictators.
Joe Faust responded with a single word:
Joe Faust wrote:Hope.
That's when Michael Grisham chimed in ...
Michael Grisham wrote: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.
It's hard to believe that someone as smart as Michael Grisham could be so obtuse about a simple matter. No one is denying Davis the "right" to do anything with his forum. That's not the central issue in these bannings. The central issue is how the hang gliding community responds to these bannings. Should they speak up as Joe and Ben have done? Should they remain silent to these abuses (as the vast majority do). Or should they comfort and defend the perpetrators as Michael Grisham has done?
Joe makes this very clear with an analogy in response to Michael's post. Joe writes:
Joe Faust on Aug 07 2019, at 1:02am wrote:Michael,
Swift's account was just completely deleted.
Imagine you are among many guests attending a party at Jack's house. You are upstairs playing billiards with friends, and you hear some commotion in the back yard. Jack has just thrown out your good friend Swift. Swift has always been a calm, respectful, and reasonable friend.
What do you do?
A. Go back to billiards.
B. Ask Jack why why why?
And if you do ask Jack, and he doesn't have a very good answer, what do you do?
A. Go back to billiards.
B. Leave.
Please share your insight.
-----------------
Done with this forum.
End of an era.
Lost hope.
Will build elsewhere.
Joe's point is very very clear. It's not about what Davis does or what Jack does. It's about what Michael does. Joe is pointing to Michael's responsibility as a member of a community of human beings who witness another member of that community being abused. What will Michael Grisham do?
Sadly, the answer arrived within the hour:
Magentabluesky (Michael Grisham) wrote:
Jack Lambie's Landing in the Nudist Camp Story.
Jack Lambie of Hang Loose fame also flew sailplanes, a Schweizer 1-26 out of Elsinore. Jack was one of the first to discover and explore the Elsinore-Hemet Shearline, first on his motorcycle and then in the air and wrote early articles on Southern California Shearlines 1960 (also Some Observations on the Elsinore Shearline Soaring May-June 1956, Plans to Explore the Shearline Soaring Sept-Oct 195).
On one of these cross-country soaring adventures Jack found himself getting low in the 1-26. Spotting a small grassy field next to a pool and club house, Jack set up for the out landing. He first had to clear the high fence bordering the compound, slipped the nibble 1-26 to the spot, and rolled out the landing on the green grass. He unbuckled his seatbelts, popped open the canopy to be greeted by some naked people approaching the sailplane. The thought raced through his mind, My God, I have landed in a Nudist Camp.
The Nudist's were quite friendly and helpful escorting Jack to the bar for a tall cool drink, and a phone to call the retrieval team for the recovery of the sailplane. Jack felt a little awkward being fully dressed in the presence of these unclothed natives, but in true Jack Lambie fashion, he began sharing the joy of soaring stories with his new found friends. The time flew by, lost in stories of swirling air currents and floating on clouds. The retrieval team had arrived. Before Jack left the bar with the crew to break the sailplane down and load it on the trailer, one of the directors asked Jack if he would like to speak to the entire group later at their evening meeting. Jack agreed. He would give a soaring presentation when he finished loading the sailplane onto the trailer.
The time for the evening presentation had arrived and remembering the awkward feeling of being fully dressed in the presence of nudists at the bar earlier in the day, Jack came to the realization, well when in Roman, do as the Romans do. Jack undressed in the bathroom and then made the grand entrance into the meeting hall. He looked out at the sea of people and realized they were now fully clothed. Jack was standing there in front of the group, the only one buck-ass naked. In true Jack Lambie fashion, what could he do, but just continue on giving the presentation, sharing the joy of soaring in the buff.
So what are the lessons to be learned of Jack Lambie's Nudist Camp Story?
One, if you have a group of friendly nudists helping you retrieve your Hang Glider or Sailplane, it is best not to launch into a sermon about the moral degradation of nudism. Share the joy of soaring.
Two, you are on their turf, know the house rules, or you may be presenting yourself naked in front of a fully clothed audience.
Cheers to Jack Lambie.
Link
Hang Loose
Michael Grisham's story about Jack Lambie is a good one. And it does remind us that different people have a right to their different customs. But does the same story make sense if you replace the practice of nudism with the practice of human sacrifice? I hope not. Michael's logic ignores the moral aspect of harming other people. The nudists don't harm anyone visiting them. They don't shun people who are clothed. That's clear from the first part of Jack Lambie's story. Jack Lambie was welcomed to speak to the nudists while clothed, and he was welcome to speak to the clothed while nude. No one was thrown out, and there was no injustice to oppose or ignore.
Now, I can understand why Michael Grisham feels bad for not standing up for Joe. It's the same reason that most people feel bad when they don't stand up for others. But here's my message for Michael and everyone else who hasn't stood up against these abuses:
There is always time to change as long as you are alive. People will forgive you. Joe will forgive you. I will forgive you. But you have to make the change.
There is no greater example than Ben Reese. Ben came out attacking me on the Oz Forum during my expulsion because he had been given some bad information by people that he trusted. But Ben was open to hearing other sides, and he really looked into the facts. He did his homework. Ben turned 180 degrees on that subject. I have to salute him because we all know how hard that is. But he did it, and we have been on great terms ever since. I have the greatest respect for people who think on their own and even reverse themselves. Ben, you are a great human being.
Michael, you can still do that to this day. Just come out and agree that it's not about what's legal or illegal. It's about how we shape the bad behavior of others through our own actions - OUR OWN ACTIONS. When Joe Faust was banned, you should have spoken up and voted with your feet if your requests were ignored. You could still have made your arguments about ownership rights, but you could have made them while walking out the door. Please think about it, and please give Ben Reese a call. I think he can help you out.
