by JoeF » Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:48 pm
by Bill Cummings » Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:25 pm
by SamKellner » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:20 pm
by Bill Cummings » Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:52 am
(DAAAAHHHHH) Of course more recent not quite history yet were the Extra Light, GTR that come to mind.by JoeF » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:29 pm
by JoeF » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:03 am
Ken,
1. You use clout to cement a narrow view of hang gliding.
2. You use clout to stay off logical attack on the JD-unearned invention badge.
3. You attack poster through a narrowizing fuzzy "most tortured interpretation" and "relevance" censorship force. Aw owner of your forum, I guess you may use your position any way you wish; if your guests in this forum strain some private agenda of yours, then you apparently have the power to remove or to push or to damp the discomforting strain. But consider how many of us have trusted you to collect and keep our collectibles. To now discuss what is in the collection has been the course of this forum; but if it becomes so that only your slants of understanding the radiance from the collection are "relevant" , then this forum will lose a huge opportunity to be relevant to that very collections' radiance. The collection's radiance includes the fact the a very simple hang glider used hung pilot operating cable-stayed A-frame or triangle control frame in a hang gliding sport meet in 1908; the collection's radiance also includes matter on John Worth's full display of the same involved mechanics; the collection's radiance has material enough to show "obvious" on key mechanicals that move to de-party the untenable of mechanical "inventor" for your favorite boy JD. You are free to exercise your office and clout and ownership to play god over what is "relevant" in your forum; but such may not reflect well over your scholarship quotient. If posters are ever damped to curate the collection, then an opportunity will be missed.
4. You use poor statistics to try to prove some point about engagement. Different would be to take the whole of the group, not a self-serving short-term snapshot. For all you know, the recent rapid offerings are just the tip of an iceberg where people in the long haul will read earlier posts and engage greatly. My posts face what others have posted earlier; I did not post the the elephant untenable; GH did; count his posts for another statistic. In the long run, it well may be the case that my portion of posting will become a very tiny portion of the whole. I did not count my posts and compare the count; and I have enough mathematical background to see how you just abused statistical analysis to press for a slanted story.
5. You were invited to put your attack to the test and you did not come up with one specific quote to play the game of showing relevance to hang gliding. I waited ready to face any offer from you for the "relevance" party. It is understood that something may not seem relevant to you---that is respect; but let the game of relevance be discussed by your bringing in some test cases after you attack. Are forum participants now required to have your set of "relevance" values? Such damps facing hang gliding issues that rise from your material collection. We did not contribute our materials to you only to have you use collector clout to damp careful curating of the materials.
6. Awakened in sleep this morning by the following hang-gliding-relevant matter: "The invention party cannot validly be won by using "obvious" that had become ubiquitous in the toolset of hang gliding and aircraft mechanics of good skill." That is, "posting" as needed, namely queeposting and its rigging as needed whenever needed; that is, the ancient and mid-ages, and 1960-61 ages queenposting control frame; such was exhibited, written about in FLIGHT for control, used by big-seens as Santos Dumont, used and published in a vast variety of ways, saturated in John Worth, James Hobson, Thomas H. Purcell, Jr., Mike Burns, mechanically in Charles Richards, Ryan; then when that fully tired art is simply used by a tinkerer, such cannot win the professional respect ---up to global mechanical invention-- of those who care to keep the integrity of hang gliding's mechanical invention sector. To do otherwise is to rob, injure, set bad precedent, and risk physical injury by distorted attentions. Such matters de-parties part of the GH-TA-Ken-JD-SM-FAI dance regarding the mechanical inventor issue; and you avoid engaging such while you try to replace such issue with loud focus on other issues (the other issues are important, but the act of avoiding and shoving to replace an issue... is not fun; such is more of the bully tactic.
7. I will be happy to pause in this forum while I post in other forums. The owner of the house in many posts seems to press for a one-perspective push on a core hang gliding matter; I do not want to be impolite in his living room. I will set a test: when 10 group members invite me to post again in this forum (will not count my self in the 10), then I will post again in this forum. If I never get 10 distinct members writing to me to post again here, then I will never again post in this forum. There are hundreds of thousands of forums that have not my posts, so adding another to that list will be easy. So, I ask your understanding, All, if you post a direct note to me in the forum here, then my not answering in the forum might be a structural matter, as maybe the "10" threshold will not have been met yet; I will converse with you in private notes, not public notes, until that "10" is reached. If not 10 of 170 members want me to post, then other forums and private notes will suffice. I am available for topic and issue engagement via email, via OZ Report (non-public), via USHawks (public), via a hundred and more other hang gliding-focused open Internet pages.
Anyone is invited to discuss hang gliding matters in the following spaces:
http://www.HangGliderMuseum.com
http://www.HangGliderMagazine.com
http://www.worldhangglidingassociation.org
http://www.energykitesystems.net
http://www.hanggliderhistory.com
http://ushawks.org/forum/
http://www.worldparaglidingassociation.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/ since most hang gliding is actually kiting and most hang gliders are kite systems;
http://www.ottowings.com
http://www.rogallohanggliders.com
WaterSkiKiteHistory
History of Hang Gliding Museums
... and more.
Been fun sharing with others in Ken's living room here!
Wish all the best to all members,
... see you again when ten occurs,
Best of Lift to You and Yours Forever,
JoeF
70 of the last 100 messages have been from Joe. Either Joe needs to post less or everyone else has to post more. If what Joe is posting is not engaging others to a greater degree then he needs to either post less or find material that engages other members more. If members wish to validate the material Joe is posting then you can do so by engaging him. Alternatively Joe can post less frequently, less material, more germane material, or find more engaging material. 70 out of 100 is two and a third times as much as the other 170 members put together. I have said before that I set this group up to support my collection and the collection work. If it is at least tangentially connected I am game to let the discussion range widely but only the most tortured interpretation of what constitutes relevance to hang gliding can explain many of the messages.
by Bob Kuczewski » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:11 am
by SamKellner » Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:49 pm
Greame just crushed. 
by Bob Kuczewski » Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:02 am
SamKellner wrote:http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34001
by SamKellner » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:53 am
If you check the OZ Report web crawler below the headlines, you will see that this incident is reported in at least five major publications as a HANG GLIDER. I personally am sick of having the hard-won safety record of hang gliding destroyed by these yahoos with their collapses and blowbacks. Will this dipshit call the media to rectify the errors? Obviously not.
The only recourse is, whenever hang gliders have a crash (much rarer incident) tell the press that it's a PARAGLIDER.
You can comment on their web site.
Feel free to blame Ken de Russy for this SNAFU. Afterall it was Ken who credited John Dickenson right here on the ORF with the invention of the paraglider since as we have also been informed it sprang directly from his other invention, the delta wing ski kite. Laughing
That is dishonest on so many levels Johnny, shame on you.
Graeme
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 235 guests
Home