[Bob Kuczewski]

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 believe all of this is true. I'll add that Frank helped us plan all of the modern Otto Meets,, and Frank went to the County of Los Angeles to help open Dockweiler to non-USHPA pilots, and Frank drove me to the top of Horse Canyon so I could get a flight (thanks very much), and Frank and I drove to Utah together where we could both fly (thanks very much again), and Frank recently drove down to San Diego to attend an important meeting about Torrey Pines. In other words, Frank has "walked the walk" when it comes to supporting the sport of hang gliding on many fronts. Thanks Frank!  

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

That is very good advice, Frank. With that thought in mind, please reconsider this one small aspect of your previous post:

Rather than deliberately getting myself banned, which is what Bob wanted ...

I am trying to say this as kindly as I can Frank. You just criticized Warren for guessing about what you were thinking. Are you really so sure you knew what I was thinking?

For the record, I was thinking that you (Frank) and Mike Grisham and Red would form enough critical mass on the forum that you would quickly find many others backing you up regarding Joe's ban. Lots of people like Joe, and lots of people like the three of you (Frank, Mike, and Red). I felt it was highly likely that you'd have gotten enough of a groundswell going that Jack would have decided to "save face" by saying he was restoring Joe "for the good of the community" or some other face-saving phrase. That's what I believed then, and I still believe it today. We may disagree on what would have actually happened, but that's not the same as me wanting you to be banned.

So - as kindly as I can say it - please don't say that I wanted you or anyone banned when the truth is the exact opposite. I would vastly prefer if all of these bans were stopped so everyone could participate everywhere in saving the great sport of hang gliding.

[Frank Colver]

Well I got to the point where one more post on the subject on HG.org would have had me banned and i had to decide: can I do more if I can stay in touch with Jack, through PM's, or do more if I'm unable to communicate anything to him in the future, which is the position of all those who have been banned. They are on the outside looking in, can't even get a PM to Jack. i would have continued my efforts on Joe's behalf but it was a "Mexican standoff" between those two. Jack said he would let Joe back in if Joe would allow individuals to opt out of the USHGRS rating list and Joe basically said no way he'll do that. So, I realized that with two "immovable objects" there was nothing else I could do to help Joe, and I stopped my efforts on his behalf.

I generally work alone with person to person negotiations and don't usually "broadcast" any efforts I may be making on a "cause", like on someone else's behalf. Of course, if I'm not successful then others don't even know I made the effort. So be it, but it still galls me when i'm attacked for something the attacker doesn't even know anything about.

I definitely appreciate that US Hawks is much more tolerant of posted opinion, that the moderator may not agree with, than the other two forums are. But I also enjoy reading about epic flights, equipment, personal triumphs, flying sites I'll never get to, etc., on HG.org. All three of the HG forums have their place and US Hawks needs to concentrate on becoming the best of them all and let the others exist as however their owners want them to, even when we don't agree with their moderation decisions. It's their right to accept or ban posts or any person they wish, as long as they don't run up against existing discrimination laws. I have mustered out of the forum wars, complete with my wounds. Anyone who doesn't like the other forums - I suggest you don't go there.

Frank C.

[Free]

Well I got to the point where one more post on the subject on HG.org would have had me banned and i had to decide:

And my arguments were in favor of you being allowed to do just that. I agreed with you, and argued in your favor, exactly for the same reason, that getting yourself banned would be a poor strategy.
Now, please don't spin my comments in favor of you not doing what Bob wanted as an attack.

I think there has been a lot of disinformation spun here. I also don't believe there was any attack on you by noting you were highly likely to be a never Trumper/Trump hater, as are some 30 percent of the American public. All based on previous unsolicited comments you had made in this forum. Was I wrong? If so I will apologize for the Trump derangement diagnosis.
I was just stating an observation. No foul.
The only attack in this kerfuffle has been on the truth and on free speech.
And that finger is pointed at Scott Wise.

[Frank Colver]

Listen to my flutes and chill out my brother: https://soundcloud.com/fcolver/

[Bob Kuczewski]

Listen to my flutes and chill out my brother: https://soundcloud.com/fcolver/

Thanks Frank!

I just listened to "Salmon River Flute F" and I feel much better already.   

Salmon_River_Flute_F.png (405.13 KiB) Viewed 6139 times

Look, as Warren noted, the country is pretty evenly split between the Obamanites and the Trumpists. If anyone here thinks that the U.S. Hawks is just too darned big with far too many members, then please speak up. But since that's not very likely, then please be respectful and tolerant of other political, cultural, and religious views on the forum.

We could easily cut the U.S. Hawks in half over politics. We could easily cut those halves in half again (or more) by arguing over religion. And we could cut it in half again and again for every subject under the sun. Let's not do that.

While we may be split a dozen ways on other issues, we are almost universally united on the fact that the sport of hang gliding is being destroyed by those in power. That should be our focus. That's at least something that we have a possibility of fixing.

[Bob Kuczewski]

What can the U.S. Hawks be?

The title of this topic is "What can the U.S. Hawks be?". I think it can be a place where people are free to speak their minds and are willing to accept criticism and apologize for mistakes. Let's see what that might look like ...


In the "Frank Politics" section:

Frank has indicated in the past his allegiance to the leftist delusion/derangement.

Warren, the U.S. Hawks would be a better organization if you could apologize to Frank for characterizing his political views as an "allegiance to the leftist delusion/derangement".



In this topic:

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".

Scott, I believe you misunderstood Warren's use of "their censorship" in his post. He was referring to the fact that Joe, Bob, and Scott had been censored on hanggliding.org and not that Joe, Bob, and Scott had censored anyone else on hanggliding.org. Scott, the U.S. Hawks would be a better organization if you could apologize to Warren for your misunderstanding of his post.



Also in this topic, Frank wrote:

Rather than deliberately getting myself banned, which is what Bob wanted ...

Frank, you may feel that I wanted you banned, but that is not true. I wanted you and the others to speak up so that Joe would not be banned. The U.S. Hawks would be a better organization if you could see your way to retract that statement and rethink your assessment of that incident.



The U.S. Hawks is a very diverse group of highly individualistic people, and I do not expect any of my suggestions to be adopted by anyone. But we would be a better organization if we could find better ways to pool our efforts on our shared goals.

And now I will listen to another of Frank's flute concerts in penance for my own transgressions in this post and to help me "chill out" as Frank put it.

Salmon_River_G2.png (308.03 KiB) Viewed 6122 times

[Free]

This is appeal for moratorium on this issue until an unbiased investigation of origin/timeline facts are established, as I find myself in the cross hairs of people with the power to arbitrarily end fair discussion.

This would make the US Hawks a better place and light years above the doppelganger discussion boards.

Perhaps this should be undertaken in the "Political" forum with an appeal to honest/opinionated pilots as volunteers to oversee and review the process.'

As my access to internet is presently limited, interested parties can begin the process of fact finding in my absence.

To start the timeline though, I think it is fair to start the point of misunderstanding on board actions to squelch free speech/open discussion and the subsequent followup punitive action within and in addition to the earlier restriction.
'
The second restriction voted by the Board is where Bob changed his vote from nay of further censorship, to yes to additional censorship, based on some anonymous text or phone call.

I don't do phone calls for anything that can be dealt with in writing here and have explained that to Bob on several occasions. So to Scott, it was not personal that I did not take you up on your offer for a phone conversation prior to your actions to have me censored.

I have no animosity to Frank, and have always held him in high esteem.
I did ask him one question in response to his commentary in praise of my censorship and this is where the the drama begins with him.

Subsequent to that, I have been accused of things that never happened. Misstatements and misunderstandings that need to be sorted out in order to clear things up.

For your consideration,
Warren

PS: I see conversation by the Board, re-starting on a subject of "attacks" on posters here. I correctly pointed out what an attack was, in the case of Sara (Red Sage Bear) US Hawks #3, previous to her subsequent suicide. In that matter I was ignored and shut down.
The words used against her were vicious with no redeeming purpose. My warnings went unheeded.
I look forward to the Board's discussions on what an attack really is..

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Warren,

Please feel free to start a topic in either the Hang Gliding Politics section or as a matter for the Board of Directors if you want an official response.

You wrote:

The second restriction voted by the Board is where Bob changed his vote from nay of further censorship, to yes to additional censorship, based on some anonymous text or phone call.

I don't think that's true because I voted "No", but let's discuss it in detail in the Politics forum.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This really is an historic topic in the U.S. Hawks history. This quote is from the first page back in 2010:

One of the things that came up in another topic was the notion of healing disputes within the hang gliding community. I think that would be a huge service that we could provide, but it could also be a huge quagmire as well. I personally think it would be worth the effort. Here are several examples where such a service could have been helpful to everyone:

1. The banning of David Beardslee from Torrey Pines in 2007. This is what got me started on my 3+ year journey, and I think a lot of that turmoil could have been avoided if USHPA (or one of their Directors) had been willing to try to fix that. For those who don't know, David Jebb banned David Beardslee for life and wouldn't even give him a reason. I didn't even know David Beardslee at the time, but a mutual friend introduced us and that got me started on what eventually became the Soaring Council, the Torrey Hawks, my own USHPA Directorship, the Accountability Amendment, the HGAA, and now the US Hawks. Wouldn't it have been much easier for USHPA to just try to get some fairness for David Beardslee in the first place? Maybe that's a service that the US Hawks could provide for our members in the future.
   
2. Bannings from hanggliding.org and the Oz Report. I think that both Jack and Davis have done themselves disservices by their hot-tempered banning of pilots who in most cases just disagreed with them. They are both great web sites, and it's a shame when the moderator's personality detracts from the sense of community that's there. I think a stronger sense of community outside of those forums (maybe through the US Hawks) could help rally support to ensure that pilots are treated more fairly on those forums. The US Hawks certainly can't tell any forum operator what to do, but we could provide enough clout so that they wouldn't be so cavalier in their banning of whoever they don't like. If nothing else, we can provide a forum where "the other side" of the story can at least be told. This alone may add another few seconds of hesitation as the mouse finger hovers over the ban button.
   
3. The rift between Warren and Jim. This appears to be a long standing feud, and I don't know enough history to make much of a comment. But I can say that it's often helpful to have impartial people willing to look at a conflict and try to work with both sides toward a resolution. This may be impossible, but I think it's worth at least some level of effort.

What do you all think of that role for the US Hawks?

Warren quoted a part of that post (also from the first page of this topic):

[*] Bannings from hanggliding.org and the Oz Report. I think that both Jack and Davis have done themselves disservices by their hot-tempered banning of pilots who in most cases just disagreed with them. They are both great web sites, and it's a shame when the moderator's personality detracts from the sense of community that's there. I think a stronger sense of community outside of those forums (maybe through the US Hawks) could help rally support to ensure that pilots are treated more fairly on those forums. The US Hawks certainly can't tell any forum operator what to do, but we could provide enough clout so that they wouldn't be so cavalier in their banning of whoever they don't like. If nothing else, we can provide a forum where "the other side" of the story can at least be told. This alone may add another few seconds of hesitation as the mouse finger hovers over the ban button.

A place to counter the banner's 'official story' would be a good service to those that get kicked to the curb.
Keeping the gatekeepers honest is an honest goal.
   :
Warren

Thanks Warren. Keeping the gatekeepers honest is indeed an honest goal for what the U.S. Hawks can be.

It's good for all of us to remember the long history in this sport as we choose our present and future goals for what the U.S. Hawks can be.

[Free]

Hi Warren,

Please feel free to start a topic in either the Hang Gliding Politics section or as a matter for the Board of Directors if you want an official response.

I'm having problems exporting text, (copy/paste) from here to there, so pardon me, as Roger Stone, would say.

You wrote:

The second restriction voted by the Board is where Bob changed his vote from nay of further censorship, to yes to additional censorship, based on some anonymous text or phone call.

I don't think that's true because I voted "No", but let's discuss it in detail in the Politics forum.

You are right again, Bob. It was the first vote that you voted yes, with a comment about getting "a member's suggestion to a unanimous vote in 10 hrs. USHPA can't touch that!"

I read it wrong. You did brag a little bit. And it was an anonymous suggestion that triggered Scott? to make the motion, with commentary (theory) about protecting new people from things that might scare them away.

The second vote to further hide political comment in the 'Zone' you correctly voted no. Thank you for that. You are clearly miles above the likes of the doppelganger tyrants, Jack and Davis.