[JoeF]

briansharp,
Maybe the editing process was not concluded. Sometimes a poster will press deliberately or accidentally the Submit or Send button when composing is not complete. Note above your post that the sentence was completed. Please see his completed sentence and paragraph.
You are able to edit your own post with 4 hours; or ask moderator after that time to change your post if you note the mismatch relative to the incomplete post about which you had focused comment.

Best to you and yours,
Lift,
Joe

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks Joe ... work in progress ...

[brianscharp]

briansharp,
Maybe the editing process was not concluded. Sometimes a poster will press deliberately or accidentally the Submit or Send button when composing is not complete. Note above your post that the sentence was completed. Please see his completed sentence and paragraph.
You are able to edit your own post with 4 hours; or ask moderator after that time to change your post if you note the mismatch relative to the incomplete post about which you had focused comment.

Best to you and yours,
Lift,
Joe

Yeah, it looked like a place marker and I took advantage of the double meaning. See what I did there?

[Bob Kuczewski]

briansharp,
Maybe the editing process was not concluded. Sometimes a poster will press deliberately or accidentally the Submit or Send button when composing is not complete. Note above your post that the sentence was completed. Please see his completed sentence and paragraph.
You are able to edit your own post with 4 hours; or ask moderator after that time to change your post if you note the mismatch relative to the incomplete post about which you had focused comment.

Best to you and yours,
Lift,
Joe

Yeah, it looked like a place marker and I took advantage of the double meaning. See what I did there?

Yes, we see what you're doing here.

[Bob Kuczewski]

You are able to edit your own post with 4 hours; or ask moderator after that time to change your post if you note the mismatch relative to the incomplete post about which you had focused comment.

I am thinking that the 4 hour window may be too long.

In a hotly debated topic (as this has been), there's always the fear that someone may go back and change what they've posted. This can lead to a situation where it can't be known what was really said. The changed post will normally show that a change had been made, but there's no way to know what that change actually was. So the two posters can have a disagreement which is unresolvable. Furthermore, in that case a subsequent poster can totally fabricate what they claim to have been the previous poster's "original" message captured in a faked "quote". Again, this can lead to an unresolvable dispute.

The way to protect one's self from this kind of mischief is to wait until the edit period has expired before posting. That's not too bad for a 1 hour window, but it starts to get unreasonable for a 4 hour window. So rather than waiting 4 hours (allowing many intervening posts which might change the "flow"), posters will often opt instead to post right away to get close to the post they want to address. I've sometimes tried to get both benefits with a placeholder (as seen above), but that also has its drawbacks.

So overall I'm wondering if it might be better to have a shorter editing window. Just something to think about. Also, in case anyone is interested, the history of the motion (my own motion) and the votes to go to a 4 hour window is available in our "Board of Directors Decisions" forum.

One more thought ... I think the best solution would be an edit history similar to what's used by a "wiki". But that might be more difficult to implement.

[JoeF]

In a fast-paced discussion, maybe a   no-edit time   would help. Posters would be encouraged to compose in a local program, examine carefully their composition and only then copy-paste to the forum. Then announcement of errors or corrections or clarifications may be made in following posts. The extra pause to compose carefully may prevent some rashly made comments.

I reviewed the first several posts of this topic and found how easy it was to have posters bring in matters that splintered the discussion.

[Red]

Thanks. Having considered all of the words you suggested, and my own preferences, I have (long ago) decided to say everything I want to say about this issue right here, enclosed in these brackets [.] for clarity.
Please accept my choice here as final.

I do accept it as final, and that's exactly what I wanted to be sure was well documented. You watched Joe Faust be banned from hanggliding.org (having broken no rules that you've been able to express) and you chose to say nothing. You've done the same in other cases in the past. All of your protests and false accusations in this topic have been an attempt to divert attention from that simple painful fact.

Bob,

I stand by everything that I have said here. The simple painful fact here is that you seem to think that you should decide what I do and where I do it, and that I should not make those choices myself. I reject that concept from the word go. Your values are not better than my values, but our values may be very different. Nothing I have said here is false, but I will allow that you made mistakes (in the execution of your very-dead-horse crusade) here, which I did call you on. I will grant you a mistake or two as being negligent rather than malicious, but the rest of your manipulations, insults, innuendo, bullying, and endless harangues here have deliberately been as malicious as you could possibly be toward me. You have no right to make my choices for me. I find it astounding that you still seem to think otherwise.

Once more, for total clarity, you do not make my choices for me. There is no requirement that you approve of my choices, either. I think we can both agree that my usefulness to you as a shill for your eternal vendetta is long dead and gone, on that forum that you do not own. You can stop beating the dead horse now; nothing will get any better for you, if you continue in this useless direction.

[JoeF]

My son is not aware of this topic's struggles.
He just sent his clients a link to a TED talk
that might have something for some of us: HERE
It is speaking to me; I am listening to it right this moment for the second time. Few minutes. "OKRs—objectives and key results"

John has his site: https://www.whatmatters.com

[eagle]

Sharing your Hawk underwear, hasn't changed a thing
Who Really Cares as our Leaders rob our Free Flight rights

Public extortion by city contract,
............... who could stop it

Bone Head.jpg (50.08 KiB) Viewed 8157 times

[wingspan33]

From page 8 of this thread -

Bob,
*LOL* . . .

That's a BIG laugh Red. I take it as being disrespectful.

. . . I have heard it said that insanity is doing the same unproductive thing repeatedly, and expecting different results at some point. . .

And sometimes when someone isn't listening perhaps or pig headed, a point has to be made more than once before it sinks in.

When two people (being neither you nor I) have a dispute between them, it is none of my business how they resolve that dispute.

We could all agree with that statement at times. But there are other times (when the dispute involves one or both parties that we care about) when it BECOMES our business to help resolve the situation. In the context of your statement above, it seems that you have no business or interest in either parties. But they are both hang glider pilots (not sure when Jack last flew). One is a founding member of the USHGA with information to get out to the HG world, and the other controls an information portal for hang gliding topics. But for you, it's none of your business? I would ask then, what kind of member are you of the hang gliding community? Your attitude is not that of a leader but more of a frightened bystander who rationalizes his inaction by saying "I have every "right" to ignore the problem. It's not MY business." That attitude places you outside the community. That makes you an apathetic outsider.

That personal standard will not be changed by you, or by anything you may say. I do not intrude. I am not obliged to explain anything to anybody (my Constitutional right, if you care to check on that), and certainly not to you. You DID swear an oath to defend my rights, which also means you should not attack them.

Your "personal standard" is then to not be a positive contributing member of the community regarding disputes among two high standing members. With the context here being your (philosophical?) position that you do nothing regarding the dispute between two other parties. In so doing, you are defining yourself as invisible, powerless and afraid(?). Reminds me of that descriptive word "sheeple".

I know that you have a beef with another forum owner. This conflict is the predictable result of two control freaks, colliding head-on.

No, Red, the conflict is over one control freak (Jack the Axe) violating his own terms of service and banning a founding member of the USHGA from his site for no good reason. But then Jack might think that his paranoid belief that Joe F is a Bob K puppet is a good reason to ban Joe. But if we withhold our mental judgements of Jack, then once again, Jack has no good reason to ban Joe (a upstanding member of the hang gliding community who is trying to spread some information out to HG world). Either way it is JACK who is violating his own definition of what sg.org is supposed to be about. Being a member of Jack's community I would think that would bother you. But, as you've stated above, "it's none of [your] business".

And calling Bob K a "control freak" is another unfounded insult. Bob can't post his objections to Joe's treatment on Jack's site, so he uses his soapbox here to urge others to speak up and speak out. In his remote capacity Bob is doing his best to help FIX an unjust action taken by Jack the Axe against Joe F. An action that harms the larger HG community and violates the claimed mission of sg.org. What Bob is doing is his best to stop an injustice from his (remote) position of leadership here on the US Hawks. You insult him and stay quiet and afraid and could care less about the larger HG community generally, or the smaller one at sg.org. How does that define you?

It has caused you untold aggravation and frustration over these many years, but you are OBSESSED with this non-repairable mess that you have perpetuated.

Perhaps it is non-repairable, but those could be the words of a defeatist. Obsessed is also a strong word with a negative connotation (i.e., insult). Bob can be obstinate, single minded and determined. But I've never seen him pursue a goal, that if accomplished, would not make the (HG) world a better place.

This obsession is just not healthy for you, but again, that is none of my business, either.

And if "contradiction" doesn't come to everyone's mind as they read the above, I would be amazed. Red, you like to not get involved and to stay silent over at sg.org, but here on the US Hawks you have SO MUCH to say? What is the difference between SG.org and the US Hawks? Could it be that on sg.org "not getting involved" and "keeping quiet" mitigates your fear of being banned? Could it be that you speak out here because you don't have any such fear?

Red, the difference in your words and actions here on the US Hawks as compared to over on sg.org DEFINE this hang gliding forum site as the better of the two. Not because what you say here is correct, but because you can SAY IT without fear of being silenced/banished from the group.
- - - - - - - - -
I'll stop here for now. But I will continue if necessary, or maybe just because I enjoy projecting a differing point of view to a party who seems to be seeing a little too much "red".

PS - Not sure where I'm getting this feeling from, but I think that Red may have given his password for the the US Hawks to Jack the Axe. Things would make so much more sense that way.