[Red]

It's O.K. Red. I'm not mad at you. I'm just disappointed. For those who remember the last episode of M*A*S*H, I see folks like Red as being caught in the middle - much like the woman who smothered her own crying baby. It's horrible, and it's ugly, and it forces good men like Red (and Frank and Mike and others) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. That's not to say that they aren't also responsible for their actions, but they are being put in a difficult situation. Red shouldn't have to choose between standing up for Joe and being able to offer good advice to new pilots. That choice was forced on him by Jack Axaopoulos. That's the evil player in this discussion, and this community needs to stop feeding it.

Hey, pilots!

Come one, come all! Almost more drama than any guy can stand!

Watch here as Bob alienates just about everybody who will see this! He will never win this years-long feud with some other forum owner, but he will send one after another to try in his place, and fail. Why, even you can be next! Volunteer today!

[Frank Colver]

I'm not going to visit this forum for a while, because I don't need a daily dose of verbal abuse.

I am and will keep working behind the scenes for Joe's reinstatement on HG.org. Progress is being made but if I exposed it here Bob would just tear it down. I will be privately communicating with Joe as well as my other private communications.

Bob, you have done more to hurt Joe's cause than anybody else. Your name belongs at the top of the Wall of Shame.

Please start now, doing something to help Joe. Oh, you just butting out would help Joe a lot.

Goodby to this forum for a while. I'll return when Joe is unbanned from HG.org

Frank

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, you have done more to hurt Joe's cause than anybody else.

Excuse me Frank, you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. It's Jack Axaopoulos who's done more to hurt Joe's cause than anybody else. Period.

This little fire drill was initiated by Jack's banning of Joe Faust back in August when you and I were happily flying at Point of the Mountain. You and Red and all the others have done nothing all this time. You had many months to work your "back room voodoo" and you've made no progress as far as anyone can tell. Nothing was happening until I lit a fire under your butt with the wall of shame. In that sense, it's done exactly what it was intended to do.

[Bill Cummings]

It looks like Frank has had enough of attempted political shaming in his direction.
Frank says he'll be back when Joe has his ban lifted at the hgdotorg.
I made a similar statement to our region #4 directors about not being
back with USHPA until they not only lifted the ban on Bob K. but actually
invited him back.
I'm not even willing to lay odds on which ban will be lifted first.
I have done what Rick M. has suggested. Just walk away from USHPA and look
elsewhere and that is what brought me to the US HAWKS.
It looks like Red has an admirable tolerance level.
I was pleased to see Red still here. Next I'm wondering just how
close he is to not being here.
Free will and free speech is priceless.
In Canada and New York they have already put in place
compelled speech as it applies to preferred pronouns by self identified
gender people. To refusing to address someone by their preferred pronoun
can get you fined, fired or jailed for contempt of court for refusing to pay a fine.
Compelled speech is now in its beginning stages.
Although no one is being jailed or banned for not defending Joe Faust at hgdotorg,
in a sense, shaming is an emotional fine just short of compelled speech.

[Bob Kuczewski]

If you look at the history of most things, it usually turns out to be a very contorted series of seemingly unconnected events that lead to a result. I don't yet know if the wall of shame was a good idea or a bad one. We may not be able to know for many years until we can look back with proper hindsight. It has certainly shaken up the box quite a bit. There have been consequences both good and bad. I did it because I saw an injustice and I didn't know what else to do. But I knew I had to do something.

It's as simple as that.

I'm sorry that anyone's feelings may have been hurt, but as I mentioned earlier, this entire fire drill is happening because one person (Jack Axaopoulos) has too long held his grip on the voices of good men like Joe and Scott and many others who've been banned. He also has his grip on the voices of Frank and Red and Mike and many others who aren't banned. This whole discussion is happening because those who aren't banned are afraid of being banned if they speak up for Joe (or anyone else). That's the root of the problem and it all goes back to Jack Axaopoulos and his near monopoly control of hang gliding discussions. That's what needs to be fixed, and abandoning the U.S. Hawks to go have more "happy talk" on hangliding.org is certainly not the solution.

[wingspan33]

I am amazed at how this thread has produced 5 pages in 3 days! It's also the most contentious topic that I may have ever seen on the US Hawks.

So far I've only read most of the first page. I've been busy with other things for the last couple days. But I've read the last two posts on the top of this page.

My first comment - Red, the quote of Bob's you included comes off to me as being positive in tone. However, you obviously then tear it down. Such a gentleman (read sarcasm). But I am reading your post out of context (or without much context). I need to place it in the whole context of this thread.

Second comment - Bob is upset that Joe F got banned from Jack the Axe's site for no good reason. Bob's reasoning seems to me to be that more members of sg.org should speak up against bans that are unjustified. The more "members" who speak up, the more pressure Jack will feel and, as a result, perhaps reinstate the banned member - or at least think twice about banning the next pilot. I see no faults with that logic. But I also realize that a "member" of sg.org may want to remain a member and therefore not speak up in someone's defense - or not speak up very strongly - for fear of being banned themselves. There's sense in that as well. The difference is between the "big picture" and the "little picture" perspective. Not wanting to be banned for defending someone else is the (personal) little picture. Speaking up in someone's defense with the possibility of being banned yourself involves the (community) Big picture.

Third comment - Red, you have a hybrid picture. You don't speak up because if you're banned then you can't help (however many) newbies find their way safely in the sport of hang gliding. But then there are a number of people who can give good advice on sg.org. So, it seems like you think your advice is better somehow? Seems a little self centered.

Fourth comment - One thing you have going for you, Red, is that Jack is more/very likely to see you as an asset that he doesn't want to lose. That means you have more power in speaking up against one or more unjustified banning. You're either an asset that Jack doesn't want to lose or you are suffering from an over inflated ego and aren't really such a help to those newbies that come to sg.org. I'll take a risk and say that you are indeed a significant asset to sg.org and as a result do have power in speaking up. You could also probably influence other "members" of sg.org to also speak up against an unfair banning. That would widen the influential power base in favor of reversing an unjust ban and/or make Jack think more about banning some other "member" at some point in the future.

For now I must work at reading the whole thread from beginning to end. But I do hope my above comments lend some positive light to this controversial subject.

PS - Regarding Frank's post - I'm very sorry to hear, Frank, that you will no longer be participating here on the US Hawks (unless/until). I see you as being of great value here. Having met you during the Dockweiler meet you seem to be a tremendous guy who knows what is great about hang gliding. You also know how to transfer that greatness into the future of hang gliding. Please come back ASAP.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Scott's post does a very good job of going through the issues "by the numbers". Thanks.

I'd just like to add a little amplification to Scott's 3rd comment to Red:

Third comment - Red, you have a hybrid picture. You don't speak up because if you're banned then you can't help (however many) newbies find their way safely in the sport of hang gliding. But then there are a number of people who can give good advice on sg.org. So, it seems like you think your advice is better somehow? Seems a little self centered.

The point I'd like to add is that there are many (an unknown many) pilots who cannot help newbies on hanggliding.org because they are banned from hanggliding.org. Scott himself is a master rated pilot with decades of experience including instructor time. Scott was once very active and well respected on hanggliding.org. That's why he was unopposed in being the initial HGAA Chairman. But there are many others with years and decades of experience who've been banned (now including USHGA #5, Joe Faust). And then there are all the people who choose not to post on sg.org because they've seen people's posts be changed and the other moderator abuses. Those people include notable names like Rick Masters and Bill Cummings.

With all of that in mind, I have to agree with Scott that it seems extremely arrogant (my words) and self-centered (Scott's words) for you (Red) to presume that your advice to new pilots is somehow more valuable than all the others (both known and unkown) who might otherwise help.

Am I missing something in that logic?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Goodby to this forum for a while. I'll return when Joe is unbanned from HG.org

Ummmm... If you're really trying to help Joe's cause (and not hurt it), then you've posted your threat to the wrong forum.

By threatening not to return to the U.S. Hawks forum until Jack unbans Joe, you've pretty much guaranteed that Jack will keep him banned. In case you haven't noticed Jack really hates the U.S. Hawks and does his best to keep people from posting here.

But if you posted that same post to hanggliding.org you might actually get somewhere:

Goodby to hanggliding.org for a while. I'll return when Joe is unbanned from HG.org

Do you see how that works?

[Bill Cummings]

With all of that in mind, I have to agree with Scott that it seems extremely arrogant (my words) and self-centered (Scott's words) for you (Red) to presume that your advice to new pilots is somehow more valuable than all the others (both known and unkown) who might otherwise help.

Am I missing something in that logic?

One thing I see wrong with the logic is that there is a presumption that Red thinks that his advice is somehow more valuable.
I may have missed Red saying that his advice to new pilots is somehow more valuable----

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bill makes a good point:

With all of that in mind, I have to agree with Scott that it seems extremely arrogant (my words) and self-centered (Scott's words) for you (Red) to presume that your advice to new pilots is somehow more valuable than all the others (both known and unkown) who might otherwise help.

Am I missing something in that logic?

One thing I see wrong with the logic is that there is a presumption that Red thinks that his advice is somehow more valuable.
I may have missed Red saying that his advice to new pilots is somehow more valuable----

Let's just ask ...

Red, do you think that the advice you give to new pilots is more valuable than the advice that might be given by all the pilots who are either banned from hanggliding.org or who choose not to post there under the current management/rules?

I do understand that the question doesn't address the fact that you getting banned doesn't necessarily mean that all those other pilots would be able to post instead of you. That's a question that involves a lot more speculation about Jack. So the question (my question) is simply whether you think the overall value of your advice is greater than those who've been banned or choose not to post. The answer will help people consider the merits of different approaches. Thanks.