Discuss Tad here

[TadEareckson]

IMO...

Oh good. Your OPINION. Who coulda seen THAT coming? And you expect me to give a rat's a** about what you're saying?

...there are legitimate reasons for having to kick some posters off of forums.

I'll kick spammers, liars, and saboteurs off in a New York minute. But not 'cause I "HAVE" to - nobody HAS TO - just 'cause it makes the world a better place and I enjoy it.

Bob's history ,as I see it, challenged moderators ego. But his message was not in question, as far as what was right for the sport and to grow HG in the right direction.

GREAT!!! I'm so thrilled that you guys know exactly what that is. Democracy based aviation and physics - drawing on a base of flyers certified by a corrupt, incompetent, clueless, inbred national organization. Right?

And Bob's history speaks well for positive accomplishments to the sport.

Yeah? Has he done anything to make anybody less likely to launch unhooked or crash in a towing operation?

Tad, your message is off the other end of the scale.

Thank you.

Your ban history is clearly a result of, most of us have read what you have to say over and over and over, on each of the forums that you have been ejected from.

1. That doesn't even come CLOSE to being a sentence. Just what ARE the lead levels in the drinking water down there?

2. Who the hell is "most of US"? Who are the people who've authorized you to speak on their behalf?

3. I'm pretty sure most of you - whomever the hell you are - have no idea what all the forums from which I've been banned are - I have trouble keeping track myself - so it's not likely that you're aware of the discussions I've had.

4. You could read a fifth grade science text over and over and over. You still wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of coming away with a clue regarding the principles it was explaining.

Sam Kellner - 2010/03/28

Yeah, I don't even read all of those long winded "explanations".

5. How the hell could someone with a single digit IQ and a ten second attention span read what I've written even ONCE - let alone over and over and over and let alone actually having understood anything.

6. I've never been ejected from a forum for reasons remotely resembling rules violations - I just get my wire cut when I start winning battles really decisively.

Your posts are not doing HG any good...

And I'm absolutely positive that YOU are qualified to make that determination.

...if your suggestions were adopted...

Which "suggestions"? The ones I actually make or the ones Bob says I'm making, regardless of my repudiations and his inability to provide any evidence of my having made them? Can you cite an example - WITH QUOTES (that would be MY quotes, lest there be any misunderstanding) - so everybody knows what we're talking about?

...as we have agreed here on Hawks.

Again - "WE"? Who the hell is "WE"? I'm on US Hawks. Nobody asked for MY "OPINION". Is "we" the people you haven't kicked off of SouthWest Texas 'cause you felt like it? Where are the poll results?

Even if you could put enough people together in your cult to scrape up enough IQ points to make it over the double digit threshold would your idiot consensus have enough legitimacy to be worth a bucket of warm piss? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. That means you don't hafta respond to it 'cause I already know the answer. But do try to come up with an answer or two for some of the real ones.)

[SamKellner]

[

Sam Kellner - 2010/03/28

Yeah, I don't even read all of those long winded "explanations".

Don't say I didn't answer.

[TadEareckson]

"Cherry flavored." is an answer to the question "At what Pennsylvania town was the Battle of Gettysburg fought?" - just not a particularly astute one.

But don't worry, I really wasn't expecting anything of any substance.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob told me to tell everyone he is busy dealing with his next newsletter and he will join in on his next stop. Probably somewhere in Phoenix, AZ.

Thanks for that post Bill.

I've spoken with Tad many times on the phone, and several times he's made the assertion that his presence on this forum is actually contributing to the growth of the US Hawks. I do agree that Tad has brought some people to this forum, but at the same time, I also know that he's driven (or kept) many other people away. So I haven't been able to tell if his presence is beneficial or not.

During my recent cross-country drive, I had the chance to speak with Tad again on this topic, and he again asserted that his presence (and posts) were contributing to the growth of the US Hawks more than they were harming it. So I've decided to put that assertion to the test.

Starting today (December 9th, 2011), I've restricted Tad to only posting in the "Free Speech Zone". I plan to continue that restriction for about a month to see if that helps or hurts general participation in the rest of the forum. This restriction is not intended to be any judgement on Tad or on the value of his posts. Instead, it's intended to simply answer the question as to whether Tad's presence is helping or hurting the growth of the US Hawks and the US Hawks forum (a question he posed himself). At the end of the month, I'll review the results of this restriction to see if our forum participation (measured in posting rates) has increased or not.

All comments are welcome (either here, by PM, or in the Free Speech Zone). Thanks.

Bob Kuczewski

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hey Bob,

Doesn't this ghettoization that Rick of the Defective Ignore Button is proposing remind you just a little bit of the "New Bob Kuczewski, Scott C. Wise rule" on The Jack Show?

No, it doesn't.

If Jack had banished Scott and I to "the basement" and allowed others to post references to our basement posts in the main forum, then I suspect Scott and I would have lots of people participating in those discussions.

Let me make it clear that I have no problem with people reviewing your ideas Tad. In fact, I'm likely to post links to your writings myself. But while you have lots of good information, your presentation is so poisonous that it not only defeats your own posts but drives people away from the forum in general.

The results of the test that I've mentioned above will tell us whether that's true or not. If the forum grows during your restriction, then that will be an important data point.

[Bob Kuczewski]

IMO, there are legitimate reasons for having to kick some posters off of forums.

I'll kick spammers, liars, and saboteurs off in a New York minute. But not 'cause I "HAVE" to - nobody HAS TO - just 'cause it makes the world a better place and I enjoy it.

Tad, the current restrictions are designed to determine whether you're viewed as a "spammer" by those who want to build the US Hawks. The restriction is also designed to see if it makes the US Hawks "a better place" to use your choice of words. Both of these are in the eye of the beholder, and that's why we have to "do the experiment" to see how it turns out. Since you've been a big advocate of testing (weak links, release strengths, etc), then I hope you won't mind the inconvenience of this current experiment.

[Nobody]

All comments are welcome

[Nobody]

The US Hawks is a national hang gliding organization designed to give all hang glider pilots a platform for sharing information and a focal point for pooling their efforts to further their own flying and the sport of hang gliding.

[Nobody]

I've restricted Tad to only posting in the "Free Speech Zone".

[Bob Kuczewski]

The US Hawks is a national hang gliding organization designed to give all hang glider pilots a platform for sharing information and a focal point for pooling their efforts to further their own flying and the sport of hang gliding.

Tad has a platform to speak on the US Hawks forum. He has more of a platform here than on hanggliding.org, ozreport.com, or ushpa.aero. What he no longer has is the ability to hijack every topic and twist it to his own agenda.

It gives me no pleasure to restrict Tad. I think he has a lot to offer the sport and that's why I sought him out and invited him to join us.