[Bob Kuczewski]

I was hoping to post after Eagle, but I was a bit too slow, so I'll combine my responses ...

Eagle is one of the bravest pilots I know.

• Eagle was one of only 4 pilots with the courage to vote against Gabe Jebb in the heated SDHGPA Soaring Council vote in 2007.
• Eagle has had the courage to testify in open court when he was under intimidation to keep quiet.
• Eagle has shown the courage to speak up when the "goon squad" at Torrey was trying to railroad pilots there.

I firmly believe that Eagle would not have sat silently while Joe Faust was being banned.   

Scott's message stands on it's own. The strong, logical, analysis by Scott (please read his post on the previous page) has been his trademark in the decade that I've known him.   

Red, you continue to make unfounded accusations. Your repeated claim of "LYING FRAUD" has not been substatiated by any evidence. It seems to be your diversion from the known and documented fact that you failed to speak up when Joe Faust was being banned. You are so blinded by your own shame, embarrassment, and rage that you can't even read and process the quotes I had clearly listed as my own:

I'll only include my own messages ...

Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 8:40 wrote ...
Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 9:00 wrote ...
Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 9:05 wrote...
Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 11:30 wrote...
Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 12:18 wrote...
Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 12:19 wrote...
Bob on Sep 15, 2018 at 12:38 wrote...

Those are my exact messages to Red that he now claims are my "proposed LYING FRAUD".

Only someone blinded by shame and embarrassment could ignore the fact that I stated they were my words before the whole series, after the whole series, and before each individual message.

Red's refusal to stand up for Joe Faust has been a defining moment for him. Red's refusal to retract his charges of "LYING FRAUD" have been another. I wish I could say the same things about Red that I've said about Eagle and Scott, but that would make me a lying fraud.

Red, you are painting yourself tighter and tighter into a corner. The path out is a simple retraction, but that gets harder for you with each round of escalation. I believe you're rapidly approaching the point where it's impossible. That saddens me greatly. While you are responsible for your own actions, I still firmly believe that you've been a victim of the broken leadership that currently pervades the sport of hang gliding.

[Red]

Bob,

*LOL* !!

Your stock in trade is nothing but more manipulation, and more insults.

My answer to your proposed deception is still NO. I will NOT go and spout your words anywhere.

You will not, and you can not, make that answer change.

[Bob Kuczewski]

For the record ...

There are a number of people who strongly disagree with me on my highly controversial "Wall of Shame" topic regarding Joe Faust's banning. Both Frank and Rick have even resigned their Directorships in protest. They both had harsh words for me that stand on this forum to this day. I can respect people who disagree and make their cases honorably. The fact that they can do so and still be respected members of this forum (maybe even friends?) is a testament to what we're trying to build here on the U.S. Hawks.

However, Red's unsubstantiated claims of "LYING FRAUD" are another matter. That's not an honest difference of opinion because the facts are clear. Anyone honestly reading the record - as Joe and Scott have done - will arrive at the same conclusions they have. It is possible for someone to have temporary confusion if they were to skim this topic. But Red has had plenty of time to read it deeply and carefully. Red's continued refusal to retract his earlier claims cannot be justified as "temporary confusion". It is now both willful and malicious. I am sorry to have to say this.

I welcome any peer review of the accusations made by Red at the bottom of page 8 of this topic. A big part of what we're trying to build here is a discussion venue based on fairness and due process. That would indeed be a major contribution to the sport of hang gliding. Thanks.

[JoeF]

It touched my sleep trying to get a handle over what Red might be meaning by "LYING FRAUD."
Some preliminaries:
1. I am uncertain exactly what Red might be meaning by "LYING FRAUD" and stand willing to go back and forth with Red until clarification is heightened.
2. Below I will make an attempt to describe what I right now believe Red meant when he repeats frequently the phrase "LYING FRAUD." i am willing to sculpt changes to my understanding upon discussion with Red about the phrase.
3. And I will form some questions that might help carve out some understanding and clarification.

First, some questions to help tease out later description:
Q1. Does Red use the phrase "LYING FRAUD" to describe how he would feel about himself if he published phrases found in text of another person without fully adopting those phrases as his own?
Q2. Does plagiarism play a role in Red's conscience?
Q3. What understanding of plagiarism does Red have? Is it plagiarism when phrases are offered for absolute full adoption; that is, absolute release is made by composers of phrases, like setting out invention into public domain deliberately or accidentally?
Q4. What is the process of adoption of phrases that occurs in normal human creativity?

Surrounding Q1, some exploration:
If I adopted a phrase or statement found in a book only partially and published that phrase or statement in a manner that a reader could well assume that I fully believed in the phrase or statement, then I would convict myself as being a "LYING FRAUD" relative to the readers. Plus, if the phrase was owned by the book and the matter held creativity or novelty, then I would be amiss for not crediting the creator of the novelty or creative phrase---and in a second sense the threshold of "LYING FRAUD' might apply to me. However, if a phrase or statement was not held in ownership but absolutely freely given to public domain and I fully adopted the phrase or statement as my own and gave such in a post where the flow had reader take me at my word, then I would not convict myself of being a "LYING FRAUD."

With that, I wonder if Red is distinguishing between a case of publishing without owning what he publishes and the different case of absolute owning what he publishes. I would not want Red to publish except what he owned ... owned by fair adoption or owned by core creativity without any adoption. My other post brought up the challenge about creativity where almost all a human has comes from standing on the shoulders of others, even down to the use of simple words like "king" or "culpable" or "hang gliding" or "aerodynamics" or "free", etc. I feel no pang of lying fraud when I write about "splinted airbeams" while not having mention of company that coined "tensairity". The ancient splinting of weak beams of many sorts is a known technology; that a company is focusing strongly on that technology does not mean they own the ancient splinted beam technology. If Red cannot see himself fully owning something in the public domain, then Red appropriately would probably not tell readers that he fully owned that something; such would have him live out a "LYING FRAUD." That would show integrity by Red: publishes as his only what he owned (by any method). I would encourage Red to avoid being a "LYING FRAUD."

Surrounding Q2, Q3, Q4, some exploration:
What is and is not plagiarism? One find: "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." If one was plagiarizing in a post, then one might convict oneself as being a "LYING FRAUD." What is "someone else's work or ideas" ? If Sally has made an ice cream cone and I took the ice cream cone and said I made that ice cream cone, then I would be lying. But if Sally gave me the ice cream cone to have as my own absolutely, then I could give the ice cream cone to a third party and say truthfully: "Here, please have my ice cream cone." But if Sally gave me the ice cream cone conditionally that I tell the third party that the cone originated from Sally, and if I did not fulfill that condition, then I could convict myself of a bad thing.

In committee, phrases and statements are offered and released into the committee's ownership. Hey, I had an idea close to THAT and maybe even exactly THAT The committee works and works. The members disband the committed; minds have grown by the fertilization of the committee's work. The committee had an understanding that their synergy would affect each member of the committee. Each member went from the experience with a changed life and perspective. Then one of the committee members publishes what he or she believe to be good ideas or statements; she or he owned what he or she published. He or she owes no duty to credit the synergy of the committee, especially when what is published also has mixtures of content with a thousand other sources in the writer's life. It would be sad, I hold, if a person's attitude was that "their ideas" have no roots in parents, teachers, friends, authors, newspapers, books, magazines, essays, poems, speeches, nature's offering, angels, God, etc. Spending some ink in thanksgiving would be nice, but I do not interrupt this sentence to thank Mr. Burke or Ms. Folsom for having taught me how say "interrupt" and write "interrupt" and understanding what it might mean to "interrupt." etc. There is a huge and deep train of clouds of gift from others that brought a rich understanding of "interrupt" when I write that word; sorry for interrupting the sentence with some touch on the roots of "interrupt" in me.

Red, look carefully if Bob placed in public domain some holdings. If so, then you would be free to 100% own his offerings. And you could probably see on what you chose to own as matter that probably was already yours before seeing the Bob offerings. No plagiarism when matter is in public domain or given absolutely without strings. Ingratitude is a different matter. I went over 8 years not finding any mention in the literatore for what I coined as "cavexion." Finally, the mechanical principle involved in my local creativity about what I coined as "cavexion" or "cavexity" that used "cavexors" was observed tucked away in an obscure balloon patent; my local creativity was firm, but global priority must go at least to that author of that balloon patent. I tell the truth when I say, "It felt in my discovery process that I invented cavexion." I tell a larger truth if I ascribed, "Many have affected my life in such a way that "cavexion" surfaced in me and it felt original and perhaps inventive." It would be "LYING FRAUD" if I wrote now that I was the absolute inventor of the mechanical principle involved. Anyone is free to adopt "cavexion" without referencing me. And the involved principle is now in public domain; just refrain from claiming to be the absolute inventor of cavexion, as such is not true. But freely use and tell about cavexion without interrupting to trace all the synergistic flows that bring cavexion to the front focus.

In growing hang gliding, many people have suggested with release many ideas and phrases and statement. Adopt them as your own or not. If you, Red, make a statement, I'll trust that you own that statement. Good on you.
I've been for many years offering to Bob and others phrases and ideas while placing such into public domain (absolutely no need to refer to me upon adopting as one's own the phrases or ideas). And in reverse I've received from some others equivalently.

Please look closely to see if you were encouraged to have 100% freedom over ownership of offerings (none, some, or much). Look closely to see if you were being encouraged to do something that you could not fully adopt as your own.

I find no evidence for "LYING FRAUD" encouragement, but I can sense in concert with Red, that if Red or I published knowing readers would get the wrong message, then our bad. But to publish good true stuff would be our good.

[Free]

For the record ...

There are a number of people who strongly disagree with me on my highly controversial "Wall of Shame" topic regarding Joe Faust's banning. Both Frank and Rick have even resigned their Directorships in protest. They both had harsh words for me that stand on this forum to this day. I can respect people who disagree and make their cases honorably. The fact that they can do so and still be respected members of this forum (maybe even friends?) is a testament to what we're trying to build here on the U.S. Hawks.

I never saw much of a good argument from either one, Frank or Rick, on the wall o' shame. If they had a better argument in person or on the phone, then sorry we all weren't privy and I'm glad Bob didn't take your advice. The wall o' shame is a good start. It looks like it was a wounding blow as Jack A(ss) now seems to be cannibalizing his little moneymaker by black holing his basement. I hope you all have screen shots of what needs to be publicized for posterity. I've got all of Franks and I guess Rick didn't have anything there as he always toed the line.
Anyway, all the traffic seems to be here. Five times the readers here than on the doppelgangers.

However, Red's unsubstantiated claims of "LYING FRAUD" are another matter. That's not an honest difference of opinion because the facts are clear. Anyone honestly reading the record - as Joe and Scott have done - will arrive at the same conclusions they have. It is possible for someone to have temporary confusion if they were to skim this topic. But Red has had plenty of time to read it deeply and carefully. Red's continued refusal to retract his earlier claims cannot be justified as "temporary confusion". It is now both willful and malicious. I am sorry to have to say this.

Red cracked under the pressure. He wants to live in the Santa Clause/NORAD/kitty cat world that Jack provides while he sells access to all of his kitty cat membership. The fact that Red fought back at Bob's goading is a good sign. At least he still has a pulse.

I welcome any peer review of the accusations made by Red at the bottom of page 8 of this topic. A big part of what we're trying to build here is a discussion venue based on fairness and due process. That would indeed be a major contribution to the sport of hang gliding. Thanks.

Red, you should have just stuck with 'you are not my boss'. That would have sufficed.
You are going to have to reconcile the false allegations at some point. The sooner the better.
What one says in the heat of the moment is easy to forgive if you ask for it.

[Red]

I am uncertain exactly what Red might be meaning by "LYING FRAUD" and stand willing to go back and forth with Red until clarification is heightened.

Q1. Does Red use the phrase "LYING FRAUD" to describe how he would feel about himself if he published phrases found in text of another person without fully adopting those phrases as his own?

Q2. Does plagiarism play a role in Red's conscience?

I would not want Red to publish except what he owned ... owned by fair adoption or owned by core creativity without any adoption.
If Red cannot see himself fully owning something in the public domain, then Red appropriately would probably not tell readers that he fully owned that something; such would have him live out a "LYING FRAUD." That would show integrity by Red: publishes as his only what he owned (by any method). I would encourage Red to avoid being a "LYING FRAUD."

In growing hang gliding, many people have suggested with release many ideas and phrases and statement. Adopt them as your own or not. If you, Red, make a statement, I'll trust that you own that statement. Good on you.

Look closely to see if you were being encouraged to do something that you could not fully adopt as your own.

I find no evidence for "LYING FRAUD" encouragement, but I can sense in concert with Red, that if Red or I published knowing readers would get the wrong message, then our bad.

JoeF,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I regret any concerns that I may have caused you. I have great appreciation for your contributions to this sport, and their longevity.

First, I want to be perfectly clear: the phrase LYING FRAUD is not and never was referring to any person. It is the act (performance) of going somewhere and spouting off the words of Bob (or anybody else) as if they were my own. I appreciate that you said precisely, "I would encourage Red to avoid being a 'LYING FRAUD.' " I have done exactly what you would wish, then. Thanks.

Plagiarism as such never entered my mind here. I specifically would not want anybody to be thinking that I would claim undue credit. What is on my web page is mostly my own work, and where informal "committees" were involved, I have been granted permission by each member to disperse their ideas, in my own words.

Look closely to see if you were being encouraged to do something that you could not fully adopt as your own.

YES! This was not merely being "encouraged," but manipulated, insulted, and bullied to do as Bob wished, which was to perpetrate a LYING FRAUD on another HG forum. Those words were Bob's, not mine, and I never did own them. Bob has ascribed motives to me which are NOT true, and my judgments are none of his business, anyway.

I will be no part of BobK's petty squabbles.

[JoeF]

" I never did own them"
Your words: you want them strongly to be your own; I would hope that would be true for all writers. Own one's words.

Then they were not yours; then not publishing as yours then was appropriate. Then you did not commit "LYING FRAUD."
Bob offering public domain ideas to you was not "LYING FRAUD". His offering was sided with encouragement; encouraging is not lying fraud. Encouraging you to consider what of his offer you might adopt as your own is not lying fraud. You were free to see if some of the offer were already aligned with your own; you were free to examine if you wanted to adopt any of his public-domain offer. No lying; no fraud. Had you posted something, then you are telling us that that something would have been yours, full ownership, no matter the root genesis of what you owned. What you own as yours came from a million flows, I hold; I do not know how you see the genesis of what you hold as your own. If scholars would study Red's life with a careful scope, what would they find? Where did Red come from? Where did Red's ideas come from? How did Red piece together what he holds as his ideas? Did Red stand on anyone's shoulders? What is novel in Red's ideas? In one sense, one's Text is unique-a complex that has no repetition in the Universe. But there are some constants beyond our psyche, I hold; though 2 plus 2 in a well-defined arithmetic might tend to be constant and maybe beyond persons, how I vibrate with "2 plus 2" is colored by my life's total TextTextText... which is not repeated anywhere but in me. We may be gifts to one another; we change each other even without choosing to be changed by one another; but also we have the realm in us where we may more deliberately let ourselves be changed by another. When an offer is made in good faith, we may choose to accept some, none, all of the offer; but no matter what we are changed by the other just because the offer is part of our experience; and our response to the offer is part of our experience; and our experiences change us.
When an offer is made, we may choose to reject the offer because of the person offering; or we may choose to reject the offer because of what is offered is not something wanted.
Regarding ideas: Ideas may stand apart from persons.
====================
It is a tough call to know what a person wished, I guess. It would totally surprise me if Bob wished you to commit a "lying fraud", as he has been very consistent in many other similar relations to leave the hearer 100% open to either owning offers or not; once a hearer owns the matter, then Bob is truly out of the picture. No lying fraud.

On the matter of "manipulated, insulted, and bullied" :: I was not there. It seems obvious that you interpreted matter to the point where you state such trio of aspect. You may ask Bob if he intended any of those three aspects. And you may aim to get his perspective over his presentation to you before giving finality to the matter. Surely, from your report, you react with such a trio report, and so maybe some back-and-forth perspective sharing could do some good. It seems evident that Bob has been active; and he evidently does practice the common arts of argument; just how he is heard or received has also to do with the hearer of his presentation. Drop some water on a dishwashing sponge and get one reaction; put some metallic sodium into water:
That you felt enough to report the trio aspect is important; but likewise it is important to know if those aspects were severely valid or not; that is, maybe the flow was something else but obviously interpreted by you as reported. If the trio aspect as reported was not intended, then some effort to clear the air might help. Indeed, if intended as felt, then bad; however, if different intentions and method was underway, maybe some appreciations can deepen. Maybe some assumptions were off. I have gotten into hot water at times by assuming my hearers were familiar with my method of communicating; in the poor times, the hearers were not ready for my method; a different method would have been more successful; that my method was a failure was fact; my intention and method was done in good faith, but did not match the needs or readiness of my audience; I used methods of calculus and my hearers had yet to clear elementary arithmetic.

Best,
Joe

[Bob Kuczewski]

Update: I was typing while Joe posted so my post below doesn't benefit from Joe's thoughts. I agree with what Joe wrote, and I add these additional perspectives:

Here's what Red said:

JoeF,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I regret any concerns that I may have caused you. I have great appreciation for your contributions to this sport, and their longevity.

Here's what Red left out:

But I'm going to sit by and say nothing while Jack bans you.

Red, you can whine all you want about whether I urged you to post the Gettysburg Address or King's "I have a dream" speech. You're equally free to have ignored either.

But what you can't deny is that you just said nothing ... zip ... nada.

You didn't use your words or my words or Lincoln's words or King's words. You didn't use any words. You just watched silently as a bad thing was done to a good man.

I will be no part of BobK's petty squabbles.

Red, you sat silently while Joe Faust was banned.

The word "Bob" doesn't appear in that sentence.
Quit trying to make everything about Bob!

[wingspan33]

. . . YES! This was not merely being "encouraged," but manipulated, insulted, and bullied to do as Bob wished . . .

Red, I am concerned as to what you think it is to be "manipulated". Also, what it is to be "bullied". This is a forum. Bob posted a thread which had exactly NO ability to "manipulate" you (unless you felt as if you were being "manipulated"). And, as Bob has said, your "guilt" is giving away your actual state of mind. What you are saying is giving away your state of mind. You are reacting strongly to being "manipulated" and/or "bullied" by mere words on a computer screen. They have no power over you except the power you give them. In awarding them power you confirm that they are relevant to you.

Stop allowing Jack the Axe to really and truly manipulate and bully you. You see, Jack doesn't use words (that have no power unless you give them power). Jack the Axe uses EXAMPLES! Jack bans real people like Joe F (who you seem to respect) for reasons that no one can really understand. That creates fear and uncertainty. Those two (fear and uncertainty) are more powerful than any effort that Bob uses to better the world around him. But you need someone to blame so you blame Bob.

. . . which was to perpetrate a LYING FRAUD on another HG forum.

I would sincerely like to know what Bob's "lying fraud" was/is. I've seen no "lying fraud" and, therefore, I see the big bolded words as intentional defamation on your part. If you don't know, a person can file a civil law suite against a person who acts to knowingly defame their character. And since this web site is fully open to the public the claimed damages could be quite substantial. I think it's time for you to THINK about your own insults and efforts to intimidate Bob and just back off. Stop posting to this thread, and maybe voluntarily stop posting to the forum, on whole, for a while. Let Jack come over here himself and create his own civil liabilities. Unless you have actually given Jack your password to the US Hawks, then it's time to stop allowing him to put you into legal peril.

Those words were Bob's, not mine, and I never did own them.

So, why do you give them such power over you?

Bob has ascribed motives to me which are NOT true, and my judgments are none of his business, anyway.

And you won't tell anyone else what your motives are either, right? Should we all begin guessing what your motives are until one of us gets it right? Forget that. I've already suggested that you not post here any more - for a while.

I will be no part of BobK's petty squabbles.

Red, you are all about being petty. Over at sg.org you are "of small importance; trivial". You insist on being that way (to avoid being banned?). You fail to see (or simply deny) the bigger picture regarding the world of hang gliding. You have defined yourself as "marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views". That makes YOU "petty". Bob is the opposite.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Red, I am concerned as to what you think it is to be "manipulated".

Thanks Scott.

Please pass the salt.

                                                Don't manipulate me!!

Every communication from one person to another is intended to have some effect on the other person. Every writer's choices of words, images, and ideas are designed to maximize that effect. That's true of my posts, Joe's posts, Scott's posts, and yes, Red's posts. When someone says "stop manipulating me" they're really saying "stop using arguments that I can't defend against."