The Bob Show

[Bob Kuczewski]

This is an important subject, and it's not something that we should be handling lightly or without considerable thought.

Tad, I called you privately because I felt this was a private matter. That's also why my posted reference was non-specific. You've made it public by your own choice. Please don't blame me. I am just trying to deal with a concern that has been brought to my attention by one of our members.

I ask everyone to step back and think about what kind of an organization we would like to build here. That's where we need to keep our focus.

Thanks.
Bob Kuczewski

[miguel]

Tad

This stuff does not offend me. Anyone can read this forum. Private messages or email is the appropriate place for this type of discussion.

[Free]

I ask everyone to step back and think about what kind of an organization we would like to build here. That's where we need to keep our focus.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Double_jeopardy

Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. At common law a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (autrefois means "previously" in French), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offense.

If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In many countries the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right; these include India, Mexico, and the United States. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute law.

[TadEareckson]

Tad, I called you privately because I felt this was a private matter.

Yeah, it bloody well was. Ideally it should've stayed a private matter between the only two people it really concerned. And I don't recall you being one of them - or even KNOWING one of them for about a quarter century after the fact.

That's also why my posted reference was non-specific.

If I boot you permanently it will be due to my concerns over the topic we discussed on the phone. This forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. You have not given me any assurances that's true with you on this forum.

And just how much of a code cracker did you think it would take to blow that one open?

Please don't blame me.

I'm rather afraid I DO. It's your name that appears above that last quote.

I am just trying to deal with a concern that has been brought to my attention by one of our members.

Is there some kind of Federal, State, or US Hawks regulation that compels you to deal with every bulls*** "concern" brought to your attention by any of our bulls*** members - publicly?

I've got a concern about one of our bulls*** members telling people - PUBLICLY:

Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in.

which is a flat contradiction of everyone's rating qualifications and the absolute best way I know to get someone killed in this sport, but I don't see you doing much to address that one.

And I'll tell ya one thing... It's a whole helluva lot easier to find data on folk who've been bashed to pulps, mutilated, and killed because they've listened to people like Sam than it is to find people who've been harmed by their associations with Yours Truly.

I ask everyone to step back and think about what kind of an organization we would like to build here.

Well, I'm sure "everyone" can EASILY agree that it should be the kind of organization that doesn't have anyone like me in it. We should probably have that in the bylaws somewhere.

That's where we need to keep our focus.

Yeah. We can get to hang gliding stuff after we've finished eliminating all the people we don't like.

This stuff does not offend me.

Well, thanks, but it does ME. I don't think ANYONE should have totally irrelevant deeply personal issues smeared all over a public forum.

ANYONE can read this forum.

Yeah. Tell me about it. Just like The Davis Show where Davis and Rooney did the same thing to me a bit under four months ago. That was loads of fun for me too.

Private messages or email is the appropriate place for this type of discussion.

There was no appropriate place for this type of discussion 'cause there wasn't anyone here I wanted or needed to have it with. But I really wish if Bob just HAD to rake up memories of all that pain and degradation he'd have kept it to private messages or email - instead of here where a few people were likely to see the issue plus up on the main forum to pick up anybody who might have missed it.

Double jeopardy...

Double would've been a breeze. Permanent I'm not finding all that much fun. But Thanks.

[Bill Cummings]

“Tad,
I'm not down here because of the cussing.”

Bob, the only thing I was able to read between the lines was that the issue was language and personal attacks on Peter, Jim, Davis and others.

Then Tad’s, “Between the lines,” post is the first time I saw anything in print here about an incident that happened 25 or so years ago. Unless I missed something it looks to me like Tad threw the first card on the table.

Whatever! Since this subject isn’t about flying I’ll post here in the Free Speech Zone.

I would think most people aren’t willing to throw 95 percent of chaff into the wind just to glean 5 percent of seed. Even when the seed is prime.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Then you can boot me permanently, get all of your halfwitted bootlickers to consolidate power, and start picking off "my friends" as well.

If I boot you permanently it will be due to my concerns over the topic we discussed on the phone. This forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. You have not given me any assurances that's true with you on this forum.

And just how much of a code cracker did you think it would take to blow that one open?

As Bill pointed out, I think that reference could have been taken any number of ways. For example, I have warned you about foul language many times in the past, and that quote could easily have been a reference to that. Also your graphic descriptions of how people have been killed or how you wish they might be killed are also inappropriate for certain age groups. So there was no clear connection to child molestation until your own post. You can blame me for "outing" you, but that was your own doing ... or undoing.

Let me repeat what I've said above. I ask everyone to step back and think about what kind of an organization we would like to build here. That's where we need to keep our focus. Tad, I believe that you've been an impediment to that goal, but you've also brought some good topics and opinions to the table (even when I don't agree). So I would like to figure out a way to reap the seed that Bill has mentioned without all the chaff. Maybe we can figure out some way to do that between our two forums. I appreciate any thoughts on that.

Thanks.

[Free]

Most users ever online was 88 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:30 am

[TadEareckson]

Bob, the only thing I was able to read between the lines was that the issue was language and personal attacks on Peter, Jim, Davis and others.

I'm not so much interested in personally attacking Peter. He's mostly clueless but HAS, at least, made a useful contribution to the sport, done a little homework, and - in my experience anyway - is honest when you can get him to answer a question. Jim and Davis however...

Then Tad's, "Between the lines," post is the first time I saw anything in print here about an incident that happened 25 or so years ago.

It wasn't an "incident". It was a fairly long term relationship that two people were pretty happy with.

Unless I missed something it looks to me like Tad threw the first card on the table.

You missed something - as you did regarding the "incident".

If I boot you permanently it will be due to my concerns over the topic we discussed on the phone. This forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. You have not given me any assurances that's true with you on this forum.

Give me some other interpretation. The implication is that I'd be a threat to people of VARYING ages. I'm only a threat to people of ALL ages who come here telling other people to preflight, hang check, and know they're hooked in and that the weak link will break before you can get into too much trouble. So what VARYING age groups would you - or anyone think he was talking about and why?

Sorry, but I couldn't take the chance that everybody was gonna miss something and let Bob get away with the implication that I was one of those cartoonish evil sexual predator types that people watch on stupid cop shows.

Whatever! Since this subject isn't about flying I'll post here in the Free Speech Zone.

Yeah, too bad we're not talking about flying but Bob is just positive that he needs to do his vigilante thing to pick up where the legal system left off decades ago.

As Bill pointed out, I think that reference could have been taken any number of ways. For example, I have warned you about foul language many times in the past, and that quote could easily have been a reference to that.

Yeah, Bob, it COULD have. But only an idiot would buy that explanation - or try to make that case.

Also your graphic descriptions of how people have been killed...

Which ones? I've never seen anybody killed or even badly hurt on a hang glider so anything that I've posted...

Rick Masters - 2011/10/27

My good friends Bob Dunn and Dave Butz both launched unhooked. Bob held on to his base tube all the way down from Plowshare. The impact split his skull and he suffered terribly until he died during the night, alone.

...was from somebody else on a forum or in the magazine. And it's probably not such a great idea for people to come onto hang gliding forums and NOT hear graphic descriptions of how people get killed 'cause they need to understand that about one person per thousand participants per year gets killed graphically for mostly stupid and easily preventable reasons and start thinking real hard IMMEDIATELY about ways they can make sure it doesn't happen to them.

...or how you wish they might be killed are also inappropriate for certain age groups.

That's why so many societies have jails (or death penalties). At some point, they've realized that the costs of interacting with pathological people is too high to be paid. We're reaching that point.

You mean like you want for me? But I guess we're just talking lethal injection here so that probably makes it OK.

So there was no clear connection to child molestation until your own post.

There was no connection to child molestation WHATSOEVER *UPON* my post. That was the POINT of my post but I guess that just didn't gel with your assumptions.

You can blame me for "outing" you, but that was your own doing ... or undoing.

Yeah, pretty good job of rationalization. Bill didn't get it right away so NOBODY would - especially in this day and age.

Let me repeat what I've said above. I ask everyone to step back and think about what kind of an organization we would like to build here.

Yeah, everyone. Just make sure that "we" want what Bob wants or your a** is gonna be gone.

That's where we need to keep our focus. Tad, I believe that you've been an impediment to that goal...

Good.

...but you've also brought some good topics and opinions to the table (even when I don't agree).

Wasted.

So I would like to figure out a way to reap the seed that Bill has mentioned without all the chaff. Maybe we can figure out some way to do that between our two forums. I appreciate any thoughts on that.

Thanks.

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/15 00:27

Peaceful Coexistence

I just wanted to codify in writing what I had been proposing on the phone today.

I feel that we have some common goals and some conflicting goals. Unfortunately, I feel that the conflicting goals will end up destroying our ability to cooperate. That's the "train wreck" that I mentioned during our phone calls.

I believe if we continue down the current path, that train wreck will destroy our ability to cooperate on any of our shared goals, and we will walk away as enemies. I would like to avert that train wreck with the simple suggestion that we use our two forums for the different purposes that we've defined and that we mutually support the two forums for those different purposes.

More specifically, I would like to see you voluntarily resign from active participation in the US Hawks with a statement that you support what we are doing but want to focus on your work at Kite Strings. I will follow that with a statement that we've appreciated your contributions to the US Hawks and we'll be following your progress on Kite Strings as well as seeking your specialized advice as we progress in building the US Hawks. I'll encourage cross-linking to Kite Strings, and you'll encourage cross-linking to US Hawks. We'll both benefit.

If we can do something like that, then I think it will help both of our causes and strengthen our ability to cooperate on our shared objectives. If we cannot do something like that, then I think we'll end up harming both our shared objectives and our non-shared objectives as this train wreck evolves. This is a sincere offer to try to work together, and I hope you'll take it in that spirit.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/14 01:26

Re: Peaceful Coexistence

Tad,

After our last conversation which I've documented below for my own memory, I've decided that I don't want you on the US Hawks forum any longer. Period. I'll take the lumps for banning you if that's what it takes.

I wouldn't worry. There's virtually no chance of you taking much in the way of lumps from the kind of people you want in this organization. I'm sure you can get Davis and Rooney in here pretty easy now that I'm gone. They - like Sam - are YOUR kind of people.

I will still honor my suggestion below that you resign from the forum voluntarily so we can support our shared causes, but I do not want you to continue posting on the US Hawks forum. Please let me know if you'd like to resign "peacefully" as I've outlined by midnight tonight (Eastern time), or I'll remove you and state my own reasons.

That's OK. I think I can state your own reasons for you just fine. You can start getting busy with the lipstick.

---- For my own memory ----

1. Your memory sucks as much as all your quack, clueless, dangerous amateur headshrinker assumptions.

You stated that you had a "relationship" with a 7 or 8 year old boy (later corrected to possibly 8 or 9).

1. There were no quotation marks around "relationship" when I was talking to you. But the quotation marks give the word the "implication" that you want it to have.

2. The "RELATIONSHIP" was a friendship. The friendship was such - as I had told you - that his sister contacted me about twenty years later and told me that I was the best thing that ever happened to him.

3. It was nine (to twelve) - I recall now that I was ten years older and did the math. But hell, make it seven if it makes me look more vile and you more happy.

You did not elaborate on the details of the relationship, but when I asked if you were sexually attracted to the boy, you replied in the affirmative.

I most assuredly did NOT answer in the affirmative - but you won't know that 'cause you hung up on me mid sentence. And the answer is actually none of your fu**ing business anyway.

That's when I ended the conversation and decided that I no longer want you on the US Hawks forum.

That's OK Bob. I've been so totally stunned to find what a vicious Nazi scumbag you are that I wouldn't recommend that anybody ever have anything to do with you or any of your enterprises. I didn't think that people who could compose complete sentences here in the Twenty-First Century could possibly be that mired in the Dark Ages.

As I said, I'm willing to take whatever criticism comes my way for that decision. Some things are more important than a hang gliding club.

Goddam right they are. I'm totally into not bullying and degrading people for their entire lives just because they're born a little different and not as perfect as you are.

And I'll tell y'all something kids. Humans tend not to be all that different from person to person - there are lotsa very wide gray areas in their emotional makeups. And when you find yourself dealing with someone as rabidly bigoted, puritanical, and tyrannical as King Bob here is you're almost CERTAINLY dealing with someone who's got major "issues" himself. I wish I had been quick enough to think to ask HIM some of the inappropriate personal questions with which he was bombarding me and listen real closely to the responses.

Most users ever online was 88 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:30 am

Well, I guess now that King Bob has saved US Hawks from the deranged sexual predator in its midst that people are now flocking here to help build a new national hang gliding association. Looks like the experiment WORKED!

Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in!

[terryJm]

Well, looks bad to me!

[Bob Kuczewski]

I think this topic is mostly done. It was a sad ending, and I wish it had turned out differently.

But I did want to address Warren's comments on double jeopardy. We have a system of justice that requires people to "pay" for their crimes. Sometimes that payment is money, sometimes it's service, sometimes it's jail, and sometimes it's even death. But along with the notion of "paying" there should also be some level of remorse indicating a willingness to not repeat the offense. That's what Tad never exhibited, and that's what concerned me the most. Tad's unwillingness to admit he was wrong (in this very obvious case) was symptomatic of all the problems we've had with Tad in many other areas. His refusal to condemn his own conduct also made it difficult to have him on a forum where we do not screen people based on their age.

All of these things went into my decision and I take sole responsibility for it. I am hopeful that someday the US Hawks will be a more self-governing body with elected officers. At that time, I would welcome them to review this case. But for now, I feel it's my job to do what I can to grow this organization to support the sport of hang gliding.