[Bob Kuczewski]

Any thanks for past board members who voted on important matters when they were on the board?

Of course!! I think your vote was on the winning side of the other vote that I lost (asking USHPA to share their ratings SOPs with the U.S. Hawks). You voted and your vote counted exactly the same as mine and Scott's and everyone elses. How much does your vote count on hanggliding.org?

How soon we forget.

FC

Not true. All of our past Board members are permanently listed and remembered here:

     https://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3118

And all of their votes and actions on the Board are permanently written into the history of the U.S. Hawks forum. Just search for them and you'll find their complete history. You're welcome to continue writing your own history on the U.S. Hawks Board at any time Frank. I would certainly vote to add you and Rick and Warren.

Unlike hanggliding.org and Oz Forum, we don't try to erase people or their memories here. You can say BOTH of the names "Frank Colver" and "Scott Wise" in the same sentence here on the U.S. Hawks. You can say both "USHPA" and "USHGRS" here. But that's expressly forbidden on hanggliding.org where Jack tries to completely "rub out" anyone he doesn't like.

I will comment that Scott expressly went to bat for you Frank when he felt that Warren was being unfair to you here. Yet Scott is still unfairly banned from hanggliding.org. Would you like to return the favor to Scott?

The biggest take-away from all of these points is that unlike hanggliding.org and Oz, the U.S. Hawks is NOT just one dictator's "living room". The U.S. Hawks really is an association governed by due process. It's been that way from our founding, and it's what the sport of hang gliding deserves.

[Bob Kuczewski]

The U.S. Hawks was founded on August 13th, 2010. The following post was made the next day as I was contemplating what we might become. It was the first post to this topic:

On the grand side, the US Hawks could be a new national hang gliding organization offering pilot insurance, site insurance, rating programs, and all the benefits of the "other" national organization(s).

On the smaller scale, the US Hawks might just be a means of networking hang gliding pilots for their mutual benefit.

Right now, I think we should focus on the smaller end of that scale. I'd like to see us reaching out to the grass roots pilots and clubs to build a "bottom up" consensus rather than trying to force one from the top down. I think that's more in keeping with the original spirit of hang gliding, and I hope the US Hawks will embrace that perspective.

So let's just build up our membership and try to be helpful to each other.

It's been almost 10 years now, and I am happy to see how well we've lived up to that vision. We have a rating system. We have a Board of Directors from coast to coast and a few places in between. We have chapters with good pilots working to promote and protect hang gliding at their local sites. We've discovered recreational use statutes to help us open sites. We have an open and fair forum with mechanisms for review of complaints. We have nearly 10 years of our own hang gliding history and a few centuries further back thanks to our great volunteers. We have a group of the greatest people I've ever known who can contact each other through the forum and many who speak regularly on the phone.

Most importantly, we have continued to "try to be helpful to each other" for these past 10 years. We've helped each other form clubs. We've helped each other fly. We've helped each other with new ideas from "Little Hawk" to the "Colver Swing Seat". We've pushed each other to do better and to be better people. Rick, for example, prodded me to get a secure site certificate for the U.S. Hawks. I didn't want to do it (yes, a bit of laziness), but Rick's prodding helped me to be better than I would have been without him. Scott just recently prodded (nagged?) me to fix the login problem. I didn't want to do that either (you guessed it - more laziness), but Scott not only kept pushing, but he brought resources to the table in the form of an expert. Now we are all better off for his effort. These are examples (big and small) of "networking hang gliding pilots for their mutual benefit".

In short, the U.S. Hawks is the work of many hands. It is what hang gliding started out to be. As I said, the U.S. Hawks members are some of the best people I've ever known, and I've been proud to be among you for these past 9+ years.

So ... what can the U.S. Hawks be?    Whatever we want it to be.   

Thanks.

[Bill Cummings]

Yes Frank thank you for your past work as a Trial Board Member.

[Free]

Today marks another little milestone in the history of the U.S. Hawks.

We started the U.S. Hawks Advisory Board of Directors in January of 2015. That's almost 5 years ago.

Since that time, we've had many votes on many issues, and most have been unanimous. I think they've been unanimous because most of our Board members share a love of hang gliding and a love of fairness. So I am very happy that we have a largely harmonious Board of Directors.

But what makes me even happier (believe it or not) is when our Board proves that they are truly independent spirits who can vote their own consciences regardless of whether they agree with me or not. That happened again today, and I am very proud to say that I found myself (for the second time) on the losing side of a vote.

Thanks to all U.S. Hawks Advisory Board members for helping to make the U.S. Hawks what we've always envisioned it to be. I salute each of you!

:salute:   Bill
  Joe
  Sam
  Scott

It seems chilling to me that you all voted so quickly for unnecessary censorship without allowing rebuttal or discussion regarding your punitive actions.
You were not as fast or vicious as Grindel's mother but what comes next time?

I think the U.S. Hawks needs an association of the membership to be allowed oversight in similar 'fast justice' cases such as this.

[Free]

I'd like to see us reaching out to the grass roots pilots and clubs to build a "bottom up" consensus rather than trying to force one from the top down. I think that's more in keeping with the original spirit of hang gliding, and I hope the US Hawks will embrace that perspective.

This was from your first post in this thread.
Your last post in this thread celebrates a top down decision, with no grass roots participation, made in record time.
What happened?

[Free]

Any thanks for past board members who voted on important matters when they were on the board?

How soon we forget.

FC

Hey Frank, how soon did you forget that "Free" was the only pilot here that defended your right to do do nothing in support of Joe, Bob, and Scott in their censorship on the other sites you favor?
Or were you ever cognizant of that fact?

[Free]

I also note in the "Board of Directors Decisions" thread, which is locked down so that I can't even copy text, Bob brags about making the punitive action unanimous, against his first instinct to vote against the measure, because of a text or phone call from an anonymous member. Oh my..

Well thanks for the transparency. Should we all salute the anonymous member with an air salute? ( )

[Bob Kuczewski]

It seems chilling to me that you all voted so quickly for unnecessary censorship without allowing rebuttal or discussion regarding your punitive actions.
You were not as fast or vicious as Grindel's mother but what comes next time?

That's one of the reasons I voted 'no'. I felt you should have been part of the discussion.

I think the U.S. Hawks needs an association of the membership to be allowed oversight in similar 'fast justice' cases such as this.

Again, I voted 'no' for that reason. You can request a review any time if you like. Just post it in a new topic for the Board.

Your last post in this thread celebrates a top down decision, with no grass roots participation, made in record time.
What happened?

I don't think it was record time. Again, if you read my objection, it was because you were not able to present your side. But I don't always get my way. You could bring it up to the Board for review any time.

Hey Frank, how soon did you forget that "Free" was the only pilot here that defended your right to do do nothing in support of Joe, Bob, and Scott in their censorship on the other sites you favor?
Or were you ever cognizant of that fact?

I don't think you were the "only pilot" on that side of the argument. It was fairly bitterly discussed and some are now boycotting our site for that very reason. But my criticisms were just my personal free speech. No one was banned. No posts were changed, deleted, or moved. Would you have denied me my ability to criticize others on this forum? On what grounds?

I also note in the "Board of Directors Decisions" thread, which is locked down so that I can't even copy text,

You could normally have posted when the topic was being discussed, but once the votes are final the topic is closed to comment. Again, that was my primary complaint.

I also note in the "Board of Directors Decisions" thread
   :
Bob brags about making the punitive action unanimous, against his first instinct to vote against the measure, because of a text or phone call from an anonymous member. Oh my..

Your premise isn't even correct since it wasn't unanimous. So where was I bragging that it was unanimous? You claim that I went against my first instinct based on an anonymous source, but it turns out that I voted 'no'. I do talk to a lot of people and I also read a lot of posts and web sites. They are all influential to my thinking, but I ultimately cast my vote based on what I believe to be the right direction.

Warren, I have admired you for your willingness to admit mistakes quickly and retract them quickly. Given the pretty obvious mistake of not even knowing how I voted, this might be a good time to practice those skills.

Also, in case you missed it, these were my requests to amend the motion:

... I would like to make 2 friendly amendments to the motion:

1. We put our votes on hold so that we can invite Warren to participate.

2. If we do move Warren's topic, we should leave a link in the original location so it can be found. I believe that such a link "decays" with age and doesn't stay on top even when updated.

And this was my final vote:

I am actually going to vote   no   for the reasons already hinted in my earlier posts.

Can I get an apology?

[Frank Colver]

Hey Frank, how soon did you forget that "Free" was the only pilot here that defended your right to do do nothing in support of Joe, Bob, and Scott in their censorship on the other sites you favor?

There you go again, Free - saying something you know nothing about. I spent hours trying to get Joe back into HG.org and i almost succeeded. Rather than deliberately getting myself banned, which is what Bob wanted, and would have accomplished nothing, I worked on trying to convince Jack to unban him. Bob's posts attacking me damaged my efforts, when i was so close to having Jack convinced to reinstate Joe. That's why i left this forum for a long time.

I also spent hours trying to get Bob back into USHPA and even tried to convince them with a $25,000 donation which they didn't accept. That's right, Mark Forbes cheated the USHPA membership out of $25,000 rather than work to create an "insurance only" buy-in that would have allowed Bob to fly. I also expended a lot of effort to get Bob unbanned from HG.org, until i realized it was a useless effort. Scot's case I knew nothing about.

I PROBABLY DID MORE TO TRY TO HELP JOE AND BOB THAN ANYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET - WHAT DID YOU DO, MR FREE????? HOW MANY HOURS ON THE PHONE AND EMAIL DID YOU DO ON THEIR BEHALF???????

Please try to stick to posting about something you actually know something about, instead of guessing about what I'm thinking and doing.
Frank

[wingspan33]

I have an idea of what kind of response I'll get to this, but is posting 4 times in a row without allowing for a respectful response called SPAM?

Oh, and this -

. . . in the "Board of Directors Decisions" thread, which is locked down so that I can't even copy text . . .

Funny how I just went there and copied the following text -

Imagine inviting Free/Warren into a public debate about him using that kind of language - against a fellow US Hawks member.

And this comment you made -

Hey Frank, how soon did you forget that "Free" was the only pilot here that defended your right to do [ ] nothing in support of Joe, Bob, and Scott in their censorship on the other sites you favor? Or were you ever cognizant of that fact?

After Joe's name your comment makes no sense. "[T]heir censorship on the other sites . . ." Neither Bob or I can censor anyone on "other sites". And here on the US Hawks, when someone's defaming comments are moved to the FREE SPEECH ZONE that's not even censorship. In fact, my motion, placed in front of FOUR board members (and myself, as one of them), and agreed to by the majority, was a very CONSERVATIVE version of what I was thinking of suggesting.

Oh, and Free/Warren I PMed you - before the vote was finalized - that I wanted to speak with you personally on the phone to understand the idea behind your "Frank Politics" thread. To this day you haven't responded. As I understand it NO ONE on the US Hawks has ever met you or talked to you "live" - not even Bob. With your recent behavior I'm beginning to think that "Free" is just a sock puppet for someone who doesn't really like the concept called the US Hawks.