[Bill Cummings]

Fellow Board Members, I suggest that we start establishing a few (hopefully) uncontroversial facts.

One fact that I would like to establish is that Joe was unfairly banned. As I've argued with Michael, fairness is not the same as legality. I am personally not sure how Jack's banning stands under the law. But that's not our task here.

We are considering statements made about the "justness" or "unjustness" of the banning. In that regard, it's often helpful to use the golden rule: how would we feel about being treated as Joe was treated.

With those thoughts in mind ...

    I move that the U.S. Hawks Advisory Board find that   
   Joe Faust was unjustly banned from hanggliding.org in 2018   
   considering the existing rules in place at that site and time.    

We can have a "second" followed by a vote and/or continue the discussion.

I   second  
Is there more discussion?

[Bill Cummings]

Discussion:
Is Bob's motion intrinsically linked to Michael's motion or are they seperate issues?

I move that the U.S. Hawks Advisory Board find that
Joe Faust was unjustly banned from hanggliding.org in 2018
considering the existing rules in place at that site and time.

Does it follow that if, as Michael contends that Bob lied, is Bob's motion a necessary element to Michael's claim?
Below Michael restates the specific problem of his cease and desist post. (Summary of the last portion of his post.)

So let me restate the problem specifically, Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because I am afraid I will be banned from hanggliding.org.
I fully support Joe, but also respect Jack’s property rights.
Bullsh-t Bob needs to stop promoting his lying fraud about Michael Grisham.
I expect a retraction and an apology from Bob Kuczewski and the US Hawks Board.
As a matter of fact, Bob Kuczewski and the US Hawks Board should also publicly apologize to Frank Colver and Tom ‘Red” Howard and the Hang Gliding Community for Bob Kuczewski’ behavior in this matter.
If you actually believe the terms of your registration agreement, Bob Kuczewski should resign from the US Hawks Board and be banned from the US Hawks forum for violation of the registration agreement as he has slandered my name and reputation.
“All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.”
Michael Grisham

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks Bill.

My motion is an attempt to eat the elephant one bite at a time.

Michael's request of the Board cited this text:

Here's the truest analogy. Frank Colver, Tom "Red" Howard, and Mike Grisham were all aware that Joe Faust was being unjustly treated by Jack Axaopoulos ("sg"). They were all aware that Joe's voice was being silenced. And yet they all chose to protect their own ability to "hang out in Jack's living room" rather than stand in solidarity with Joe.

There's no truer analogy ... than the truth.

Here are the "bites" as I see them:

1. Was Joe Faust unjustly treated?
2. Was Michael aware that Joe was being unjustly treated?
3. Was Michael aware that Joe was being silenced?
4. Did Michael choose actions that would keep him from being banned rather than speaking up for Joe?

Michael has been a bit evasive about item 2. He knew what was being done to Joe, but he may or may not believe those actions by Jack were "unjust".

I had assumed that Michael also felt the treatment was unjust. I was surprised that he hasn't been willing to say so. If it turns out that Michael feels Joe was justly banned, then I'm willing to apologize for my incorrect statement. I may have other criticisms in that case, but that's not at issue here.

I think item 3 is true on its face, but item 4 is more difficult to prove. It could be argued that since Michael has admitted that he did speak up for Joe at one point, then why did he stop? Michael says that fear of being banned played no part. But that begs the question why did he stop? It is my belief that Michael stopped for fear of being banned and that's why I posted it.

By the way, I am not opposed to adding moderator's notes to my post stating that they are my opinions. I think that's implicit in every statement we make, but I'm happy to make it explicit if that resolves the matter. If Michael is agreeable to that, then we can move in that direction. I've intentionally started this topic in a location where Michael can participate if he wants. If that becomes a problem, then the topic can be moved to the Board area until any decisions are reached.

Finally, while this is an unpleasant issue, it does give us a chance to demonstrate how real conflicts can be resolved within the U.S. Hawks organization. If we do this well, then I think it will attract those who've been dissatisfied with the policies at USHPA and the other national forums.

[magentabluesky]

Finally, while this is an unpleasant issue, it does give us a chance to demonstrate how real conflicts can be resolved within the U.S. Hawks organization. If we do this well, then I think it will attract those who've been dissatisfied with the policies at USHPA and the other national forums.

Bob,

That post just by itself is a demonstration of how warped and twisted of an individual you really are and will turn the US Hawks into a Ghost Site.

It sure is nice to live in the Totalitarian State of Bob.

Michael is on trial, not Bob.

From the lowly surfs perspective:

This has to do with Bob misrepresenting my beliefs on the subject.

This has to do with Bob misrepresenting my motivations.

This has to do with Bob making a claim of what my beliefs and motivations were as the truth after I have clearly stated what my beliefs and motives were, contrary to Bob’s declaration.

This has to do with Bob’s continuing promotion of this propaganda about my beliefs and motivations.

This is about Bob defaming me with lies slandering my name and reputation.

The biggest is Bob’s flat out lie:

but they backed down when Jack threatened them.

Bob needs to show everyone how he acquired the information that Jack threatened us.

I do not personally know Jack. I have not talked to Jack in person or on the telephone. I had not received a personal email, text, or instant message from Jack. The only communication from hanggliding.org I received was computer generated status messages. Jack has never threatened me.

So the biggest question should be how did Bob come to the conclusion that “we” backed down when Jack threatened them when there was no threat or even communication in the first place from Jack?

Show the world the evidence, Bob.

There is absolutely no evidence,

because it did not happen.

This is pure fiction in Bob’s brain.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I've intentionally started this topic in a location where Michael can participate if he wants. If that becomes a problem, then the topic can be moved to the Board area until any decisions are reached.

Michael,

If you can conduct yourself professionally, I'd welcome your participation. If not, I can move this topic to the private Board area.

Which would you prefer?

Finally, while this is an unpleasant issue, it does give us a chance to demonstrate how real conflicts can be resolved within the U.S. Hawks organization. If we do this well, then I think it will attract those who've been dissatisfied with the policies at USHPA and the other national forums.

Bob,

That post just by itself is a demonstration of how warped and twisted of an individual you really are and will turn the US Hawks into a Ghost Site.

It sure is nice to live in the Totalitarian State of Bob.

Michael is on trial, not Bob.

From the lowly surfs perspective:

This has to do with Bob misrepresenting my beliefs on the subject.

This has to do with Bob misrepresenting my motivations.

This has to do with Bob making a claim of what my beliefs and motivations were as the truth after I have clearly stated what my beliefs and motives were, contrary to Bob’s declaration.

This has to do with Bob’s continuing promotion of this propaganda about my beliefs and motivations.

This is about Bob defaming me with lies slandering my name and reputation.

The biggest is Bob’s flat out lie:

but they backed down when Jack threatened them.

Bob needs to show everyone how he acquired the information that Jack threatened us.

I do not personally know Jack. I have not talked to Jack in person or on the telephone. I had not received a personal email, text, or instant message from Jack. The only communication from hanggliding.org I received was computer generated status messages. Jack has never threatened me.

So the biggest question should be how did Bob come to the conclusion that “we” backed down when Jack threatened them when there was no threat or even communication in the first place from Jack?

Show the world the evidence, Bob.

There is absolutely no evidence,

because it did not happen.

This is pure fiction in Bob’s brain.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This is about Bob defaming me with lies slandering my name and reputation.

The biggest is Bob’s flat out lie:

but they backed down when Jack threatened them.

Bob needs to show everyone how he acquired the information that Jack threatened us.

I do not personally know Jack. I have not talked to Jack in person or on the telephone. I had not received a personal email, text, or instant message from Jack. The only communication from hanggliding.org I received was computer generated status messages. Jack has never threatened me.

So the biggest question should be how did Bob come to the conclusion that “we” backed down when Jack threatened them when there was no threat or even communication in the first place from Jack?

Show the world the evidence, Bob.

There is absolutely no evidence,

because it did not happen.

This is pure fiction in Bob’s brain.

Michael, you've leapt to the false conclusion that I said Jack threatened you personally. That's not what I said. I have no knowledge of what transpired between you and Jack. Furthermore, as you know, Jack covers his tracks by either burying, changing, or deleting posts.

Having said that, it is well known that Jack threatens to ban people when they say things Jack doesn't like. In fact this entire discussion is about that practice being carried out against Joe. So you need not have gotten a personal invitation to have been threatened.

But since you asked for a concrete example, I'll give you one that I happened to find here on the U.S. Hawks:

https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3085

In this discussion, Frank had posted the possibility of other NON-USHPA rating systems in early November. Frank was very careful not to mention any names at all. Joe reported on Jack's November 3rd response which amounts to a threat to everyone - including you. I'm sure there are more public threats like these. Are you telling us that you were completely unaware of these kinds of tbreats?

I have posted this information on hang gliding .org. I have no idea what will happen to it when the gestapo sees it.

Here is a copy of my posting:

If you want to keep your hang rating but you don’t need $150 per year USHPA insurance to fly your sites there are three options.

You can petition USHPA to change their rules and allow you to keep your ratings even if you don’t pay the $150 per year. I wish you good luck with this one, it will fall on deaf ears.

There are two other organizations which, if you send them a photo copy of your USHPA rating, even if it has already expired, will put you in their permanent data base of hang glider ratings, so that you keep your ratings. Remember, you could fly every day of your life but if you don’t maintain your USHPA membership for three years your rating will be purged from their records.

The moderator of this forum will not allow me to list these other organizations, so you will have to search for them. If I listed them here he will change the URL to some silly names.

One of these organizations require a membership but there are no dues. The other is a data base which not only doesn’t require membership but you couldn’t join it if you wanted to. It is just a national data base of hang ratings, no members.

The moderator may still lock, pull, or basement this useful information for hang glider pilots, information which could save you money if you are in this situation of not needing site insurance.

I am not advocating quitting USHPA, I’m still current as member # 7 but if you don’t need the insurance, why pay $150 per year just to keep your hang rating on the books.

Look into it,
Frank Colver

By sg - Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:57 pm
Post was reported as shilling for a banned member.

Rule being violated:
"* No proxying for banned members in any way."

Also, people who enter a private business and poke fun at the business owner should not be surprised when asked to leave or their bulletins removed.
I do NOT have time for this nonsense. When people are banned from this site for constantly causing drama, they do not get to continue pushing their agendas through proxies.

You dont have to take part on this site. Dont like a TV channel? Change it.

But stop posting stuff for banned members. It gets reported, people see right through it, and I dont have the time to deal with it.

Its well known that banned member strategize how to get their voice heard on the sites they are banned from. Sorry.... they are not entitled to other peoples property and bandwidth. Go talk about that stuff on the other forum. After all, they have their whole own forum to complain on.

Org users and traffic are on an uptrend. The tiny percentage of extremists who have run people off this site for far too long, will no longer be tolerated here.

If you continue to proxy for people, you will be asked to leave.

/thread

Read more: http://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic. ... z5Vohxmxyh

As for "drama" it is found that Jack foments the largest drama on his own forum by his draconian interruptions.

It seemed like Frank was not "proxying" for someone, but was forwarding his own individual thrust. I know that I did not contact Frank for the matter. But now it looks that Jack will censor anything he does not like via some theory of "proxying." It seems to me that Jack is the only one who runs people "off his site." Maybe he will ban himself soon.
Jack does not follow one of his key policies: He wants to be treated like any other poster; well, he does not follow that policy.

Sharp HG posters may be turning the channel away from Jack's flow that cannot be trusted to hold important ideas about hang gliding. Who knows how much Jack has deleted, changed, obscured, rewritten, taken off the table, ... ?

So ... back to Michael's most recent complaint:

This is about Bob defaming me with lies slandering my name and reputation.

The biggest is Bob’s flat out lie:

but they backed down when Jack threatened them.

Bob needs to show everyone how he acquired the information that Jack threatened us.

To answer your question directly, I got that information by seeing it myself on hanggliding.org and through corroborating reports by Frank Colver and Joe Faust as posted here. This is just one example of the many threats that we've all witnessed over the years.

And where are these entire topics reported by "Steve Davy"  on 2018/11/27 05:05:32 UTC:

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=36186
HG pioneer Joe Faust should not be banned from HG.org forum

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=36257
Asking for names of all HG.org banned persons.

Both topics, vanished.

[Bob Kuczewski]

O.K. Back to the main topic.

We have a motion and a second. We can vote at any time.

I cast my vote   Yes   that the U.S. Hawks Advisory Board find that Joe Faust was unjustly banned from hanggliding.org in 2018 considering the existing rules in place at that site and time.

[Bill Cummings]

Discussion:
Michael,

So let me restate the problem specifically, Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because I am afraid I will be banned from hanggliding.org.

Bob,

1. Was Joe Faust unjustly treated?

Would knowing the answer to question (1.) be evidence pertinent or irrelevant to Michael’s claim that:

Michael,

Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because I am afraid I will be banned from hanggliding.org.

Bob,

2. Was Michael aware that Joe was being unjustly treated?

Would knowing the answer to question (2.) be evidence pertinent or irrelevant to Michael’s claim that:

Michael,

Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because I am afraid I will be banned from hanggliding.org.

Bob,

3. Was Michael aware that Joe was being silenced?

Would knowing the answer to question (3.) be evidence pertinent or irrelevant to Michael’s claim that:

Michael,

Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because I am afraid I will be banned from hanggliding.org.

Bob,

4. Did Michael choose actions that would keep him from being banned rather than speaking up for Joe?

Would knowing the answer to question (4.) be evidence pertinent or irrelevant to Michael’s claim that:

Michael,

Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because I am afraid I will be banned from hanggliding.org.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This is from Michael's original claim to the Board:

The following post by Bob Kuczewski is a slanderous lie injuring my reputation in the Hang Gliding Community and is a violation of the US Hawks policy.

Re: MoHawk Uprising
by Bob Kuczewski » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:51 am
Here's the truest analogy. Frank Colver, Tom "Red" Howard, and Mike Grisham were all aware that Joe Faust was being unjustly treated by Jack Axaopoulos ("sg"). They were all aware that Joe's voice was being silenced. And yet they all chose to protect their own ability to "hang out in Jack's living room" rather than stand in solidarity with Joe.

There's no truer analogy ... than the truth. Link

That one quote was the only evidence provided in the complaint. While certain sections of the post were additionally highlighted in the complaint, none were explicitly dismissed. I therefore think It's prudent to determine which parts (If any) of the entire post rise to the level of slanderous lies and which do not.

Let's not forget that in making his claims that I have lied, Michael has harmed my reputation. I have asked Michael a number of times if he felt that Joe Faust was unjustly treated, and Michael has refused to answer. If I weren't the person being accused, I might move to dismiss it altogether based on Michael being uncooperative. But to demonstrate fairness, I'm inclined to follow through with a full investigation of the matter whether Michael cooperates or not.

While the objective fairness of Joe's treatment can be viewed as secondary to Michael's own view of the fairness, it does have a bearing on whether I had a reasonable expectation that Michael would be in agreement that it was unfair. I would still be shocked if Michael were to state that he felt Joe was treated fairly.

So for all those reasons I believe we should evaluate the reasonableness of each element of the post in question. I think it's also important to remember that this decision will likely set a precedent in the U.S. Hawks forum regarding what we can say or not say. That again suggests that we examine the entire post.

I hope this answers all of your questions Bill, but if it doesn't then please let me know. I'll be happy to go through them one by one if you like. The short answer is that I believe the truth of each element is part of the whole.

[JoeF]

Preamble:
Have a bowl of cereal with sweet and sour parts in the bowl.
Is the bowl of cereal with sweetness? Yes.
Is the bowl of cereal with sourness? Yes.

Jack (sg) had in subject thread at his place actions by himself. My take of his action set was that some of his actions were unjust; some of his actions were within his rights as property owner. I am with the assumption that unjust actions do not become just by fact of his being property owner.

A land property owner may block a HG pilot from using owned land; but if in the process of communicating and then installing the blocking mechanisms, the property owner steals valuables from the HG pilot, then some injustice becomes evident. The case becomes clearer when the HG pilot was already admitted to do hang gliding on the property; and then during such hang gliding the property owner reverses direction; of course the HG pilot should stop HG when owner bans him or her from the property. But such whole process gives the property owner no license to steal value from HG pilot. That I was banned was an action within Jack's right as forum owner; that Jack used phony reasons and style and expressions and methods in a manner that stole reputation was not necessary to protect his right to ban a poster. Jack said I broke certain rules that I did not break; he let stand that I was a rule breaker; such were acts of stealing in my estimation. Jack let abuse be piled on a polite poster; such was within his power, but such was not fair relative to his agreements with people.

====
I am with belief that in forums it is often too easy for a poster to get seemingly behind the veil of belief and motivation and intention and too loosely make sentences over another's beliefs, motivations, and intentions while unfortunately neglecting to robustly preface such with: "It is my personal opinion that so-and-so believes such or so or was motivated by such or so or intended this or that." So, when the discourse runs up against this challenge and confusion, it might be polite to retrace and put that robust preface up, if applicable. Bob has offered to do some of that retrace posting of such preface, if such would help over some statements made. The "why" question from a child often stumps parents; I was so stumped; how far should I go in answering my child when she asked, "Why is the sky blue?" Are participants in a mix assuming that the big preface is understood? If not commonly understood, then mistakes of mutual understanding may be made. And, if that preface is not practiced some in the mix, then participants might even forget the structure operating. I do not have absolute God vision over what I am writing now as any more than my approximate opinion.