[Bob Kuczewski]

First, when Jack sent out the invitations, Jack clearly spelled out the rules and Joe reposted the then rules on US Hawks and commented on Jack’s rules.

There was no rule prohibiting a topic about USHGRS. Strike one.

Second Joe and Jack were not the only ones in the conversation. I was in the conversation and vigorously supported Joe and Joe’s USHGRS. Others were involved in the conversation too.

Where's the proof? Show us the totality of your "vigorous support" in the last 6 months. Strike two.

Just to clear up a point I was not having a beer and hamburgers. The last beer I had was a Newcastle Brown on a date with a Female Colonel Air Force Reserve who also had a PhD about eight years ago. She was impressive. No, I will not tell you what she did in the Air Force Reserve. That was impressive too.

While the USHGRS conversation was going on, Steve Seibel and Mike (Wonder Boy) reenergized the conversation on “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace (Oct 3, 2019). Both Steve and Mike are highly respected in the hang gliding community and the subject of conversation on “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace has safety and legal implications to the hang gliding community. So I freely chose to engage in the conversation for the purpose of finding some clarity to the issues being discussed. My personal opinion is the FAA has messed up the rules and interpretation of the “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace. I even went so far as to call a past co-pilot of mine who had gone on to be a Vice President of a Regional Airline in the Pacific Northwest and is now currently a FAA Inspector in Portland to get his view on the subject of the “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace.

All irrelevant.

I make the choice to post on the subjects I feel are worthy of comment, not what Bob Kuczewski thinks are worthy or not worthy.

Yes, and I made the choice to say it's shameful that you didn't feel Joe's treatment was "worthy" of your ongoing keystrokes. Strike three.

I say what is dishonorable is limiting free speech with the threat of retaliation (shame) when someone is exercising their free speech.

You're kidding, right? Jack outright banned Joe ... completely. Jack changed the words and links in Joe's own posts. And you compare that to your "limited" speech here on the U.S. Hawks? Ask anyone here if they feel your speech has been too "limited".          (Strike four).

I I feel no shame, I followed an honorable path.

And therein lies the problem. Strike five.

A far as the posts I made in support of Joe and Joe’s USHGRS, they were viewable on Hang Gliding dot Org in early December when I went back and reread them when Bob was accusing me of not supporting Joe. When I reread my posts I was impressed at how supportive I was of Joe and Joe’s USHGRS. Jack has deleted (edited) many if not all of those posts. That is his right and is his rule. Jack has clearly stated his right to delete or edit any content on his website in his posted rules. I do not go through life documenting every occurrence to prove the facts to Totalitarian Bob.

Then please ask Jack for a copy of what you've written.

Bob, feel free to harvest all the posts on all the Hang Gliding Forums. All the while Bob shames for posting on Hang Gliding dot Org, but Bob is visiting Hang Gliding dot Org running up Jack viewership numbers making money for Jack. Bob should be feeling the shame and putting his name on his own Wall of Shame.

Forums live or die by participation. It's participation (post activity) that drives viewership. No activity, no viewers. You should know that. Strike six.

I clearly stated in the Cease and Desist Request that Bob is entitled to his opinion, but the Feb 06, 2019 post by Bob clearly is being representative as being the “truth” and not Bob’s opinion. Furthermore in the context of the first two sentences, Bob is representing that Frank, Mike, and Red were aware of the “truth” that Jack was unjustly treating and silencing Joe. Bob is representing to the world that all three believe that Joe was being unjustly treated and silenced. I can only speak for myself and can say that is a very simplistic view of the circumstances which I would not agree with and not representative of the truth of my beliefs. Bob is therefore propagating a lie of what I believe in the matter.

Justly or unjustly? I have said that I believe you know that Joe's treatment was unjust. In all this time you've been unwilling to state that you feel Joe was justly treated. Strike seven.

The whole point of the matter is not what Bob’s opinion is. The point is Bob Kuczewski is representing to the world that I believe in facts and events that are just not true.

Do you feel Joe was treated justly or unjustly?

The biggest lie being, Jack threatened me with banishment. It just did not happen, a flat out Bob Kuczewski lie. Bob apologize to Jack.

If that's the biggest lie, then your case is over. Everyone knows that Jack threatened everyone. Unless you can find a way to exclude yourself from the set of "everyone", then that includes you. Strike eight.

So, here I am “defending” myself against the lying Bullsh-t Bob promoting a “Lying Fraud”. Yes, Bob is the Evil One limiting people’s free speech and limiting where they can post on Hang Gliding forums. Yes, Totalitarian Bob is having a tizzy doing the dead bug on the floor in a Temper Tantrum overload.

Bob, are you putting Joe Faust on Bob’s Wall of Shame for soliciting posts on Hang Gliding dot Org?

Soliciting is against the law.

Head Lines: BobK Pleads Not Guilty to Solicitation (Real Google Search)

Once again your own statements undermine the credibility of your complaint. Strike ... out.

[magentabluesky]

Bob, if you want to protest in front of Jack Phillips Bakery in Colorado because two gay men were treated unfairly, please do so.

It is your moral thing to do.

The Game was over a long time ago.

You are just wallowing in the mud.

People are just not going to stand for Totalitarian Bob telling them what to say and limiting their options as to where they wish to post, including Joe Faust.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael,

This topic is all about you making a claim to have me removed. The burden of proof is on you.

I have a right to explore all aspects of your claim. One of the most important aspects is whether you felt Joe Faust was justly treated or not. I believe you felt he was unjustly treated, and that's why I wrote exactly that. I still believe that. But I've also asked you directly several times to be sure. You've refused to answer. You've evaded the question with claims that it's not such a simple matter. So let me make it even simpler.

If Jack sent you the following message:

Michael, I will do exactly as you say. Do you want me to ban Joe Faust or not?

What would be your answer?

[magentabluesky]

Bob, I cannot help you with your reading and comprehension skills or the lack thereof.

I have answered your question in voluminous form.

I will make it even simpler Bob.

When someone would pull out their soapbox and start exercising their free speech where I was the absolute authority, and I mean the absolute authority, I would be fair and I would give them a warning and make them promise me they were going to behave. Many times (most times) they would start talking out of the side of their mouths justifying their actions, but not promising me they would follow the rules. I would calmly tell them that was not the answer I was looking for. Most figured it out, promised to behave and they did, but a few did not. The ones that did not figure it out did not go with the rest of us.

It is that simple.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I have answered your question in voluminous form.

You've evaded it in voluminous form. Try it in simple form.

Jack's hypothetical finger is hovering over the "ban" button.
Ban or no ban? What do you tell him?

I will make it even simpler Bob.

When someone would pull out their soapbox and start exercising their free speech where I was the absolute authority, and I mean the absolute authority, I would be fair and I would give them a warning and make them promise me they were going to behave. Many times (most times) they would start talking out of the side of their mouths justifying their actions, but not promising me they would follow the rules. I would calmly tell them that was not the answer I was looking for. Most figured it out, promised to behave and they did, but a few did not. The ones that did not figure it out did not go with the rest of us.

It is that simple.

Even simpler? So much for your credibility.

Ban or no ban? The button only has two positions.

[magentabluesky]

In Junior High, Maude B. Davis, when a fight would break out on the athletic field, a crowd would gather around the two combatants. Coach Kelsey and Coach Sheldon would climb a decorative block wall to the roof getting a good vantage point to watch the fight, insuring the fight was fair with no weapons involved and no one was getting killed.

Coach Kelsey and Coach Sheldon would let the students sort out their differences and the student on lookers honored that code of conduct as well. The coaches and the students let them settle their own conflict.

Wish you had talked to me first, Bob, I would have said: BUTT OUT!

Damn!

Frank
Link

[Bob Kuczewski]

Do you think Joe was in a "fair fight" with Jack able to change Joe's posts and ban him at will?

To use your analogy, Coach Grisham climbs the wall to watch the unarmed Joe Faust be slashed with razor blades.

How many strikes is it now Michael?

In Junior High, Maude B. Davis, when a fight would break out on the athletic field, a crowd would gather around the two combatants. Coach Kelsey and Coach Sheldon would climb a decorative block wall to the roof getting a good vantage point to watch the fight, insuring the fight was fair with no weapons involved and no one was getting killed.

Coach Kelsey and Coach Sheldon would let the students sort out their differences and the student on lookers honored that code of conduct as well. The coaches and the students let them settle their own conflict.

Ban or no ban? The button only has two positions.

[magentabluesky]

Bob, why is Bob Kuczewski insistent on meddling in things that are none of his business and cause more conflict.

The conflict between Joe Faust and Jack Axaopoulos regarding Joe’s USHGRS had absolutely nothing to do with Bob Kuczewski and the US Hawks.

Bob it is way past time you took responsibilities for your actions.

It is my opinion that the "Wall of Shame" posting, by Bob, may have done irreparable harm to my "behind the scenes" efforts to get Joe back into HG.org. I won't say more because of communications I want to remain confidential.

The irony here may turn out to be that Bob was the biggest obstacle to getting Joe back in.
Link

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, why is Bob Kuczewski insistent on meddling in things that are none of his business and cause more conflict.

Fairness to each other is everyone's business.

Just because you shirk your responsibility in ensuring others are treated fairly doesn't mean that I do. Don't forget that I got into this whole can of worms because John Heiney came to me to ask my help for someone I didn't even know at the time. Dave Beardslee has been able to fly at Torrey for over a decade now because I didn't shirk my own responsibility.

The conflict between Joe Faust and Jack Axaopoulos regarding Joe’s USHGRS had absolutely nothing to do with Bob Kuczewski and the US Hawks.

An injustice to anyone is an injustice to everyone.

Bob it is way past time you took responsibilities for your actions.

I have stood for the rights and fairness of others. I chose that path and I take full responsibility for it. We've lost Frank and Red (and indirectly, Rick) because I called three of you on your shameful silence in Joe's banning. I take responsibility for that because it was the right thing to do. That's what we owe each other, and now each of you know it ... very well.

It is my opinion that the "Wall of Shame" posting, by Bob, may have done irreparable harm to my "behind the scenes" efforts to get Joe back into HG.org. I won't say more because of communications I want to remain confidential.

The irony here may turn out to be that Bob was the biggest obstacle to getting Joe back in.
Link

The biggest obstacle was Jack. But the silence of the onlookers was a close second.

Ban or no ban, Michael? The button only has two positions.

[magentabluesky]

Bob,

All I can say is, you sure have a way of screwing things up.

And as Dr. Phil would say, “How is that working for you?”