[magentabluesky]

It is obviously you did not read and comprehended my “Letter to Joe Faust”.

If you would have read and comprehended my “Letter to Joe Faust”, you would realize your following statement is false:

My statement has been that it was shameful of you to remain a participant (customer) of Jack's forum without continually speaking out about the unfair treatment of Joe Faust.

Since this is a false statement, I feel no shame and I see no need for action except to stop you from misrepresenting my beliefs, motives, feelings, and now dilemmas.

Since you seem obsessed with the Phillips case, let me cast it in those terms. If you were gay and did not like Mr. Phillips refusing to bake a cake for your gay friend, then there would be two honorable paths for you to take:

1. Speak out against it (protesting on the property until ejected and then continuing to protest on public property and in the public media).

2. Cease all patronage of the cake shop.

Bob, you are free to join the protest at Mr. Phillips bakery shop if you feel the gay couple was unfairly treated.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael, you either haven't read or understood my comments because I have clearly sided with the Supreme Court's decision in that case. I stated so very plainly.

Also, while some members of the Board may take the time to read all of these scattered topics, they are not required to do so any more than a judge or jury would be expected to follow what goes on outside the courtroom (which they're often instructed to explicitly avoid). So if you have comments you'd like the Board to consider, please confine them to the topic of that proceeding. Thanks.

It is obviously you did not read and comprehended my “Letter to Joe Faust”.

If you would have read and comprehended my “Letter to Joe Faust”, you would realize your following statement is false:

My statement has been that it was shameful of you to remain a participant (customer) of Jack's forum without continually speaking out about the unfair treatment of Joe Faust.

Since this is a false statement, I feel no shame and I see no need for action except to stop you from misrepresenting my beliefs, motives, feelings, and now dilemmas.

Since you seem obsessed with the Phillips case, let me cast it in those terms. If you were gay and did not like Mr. Phillips refusing to bake a cake for your gay friend, then there would be two honorable paths for you to take:

1. Speak out against it (protesting on the property until ejected and then continuing to protest on public property and in the public media).

2. Cease all patronage of the cake shop.

Bob, you are free to join the protest at Mr. Phillips bakery shop if you feel the gay couple was unfairly treated.

[magentabluesky]

We are dealing with that as expeditiously as possible given your unwillingness to answer simple questions related to the heart of your complaint.

I sent you my Cease and Desist Letter Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:32 pm.

It has been ten days of Bob and Weave, Bullsh-t Bob.

Your cease and desist topic has NOT been hijacked.

My Cease and Desist Letter was Hi-Jacked.

[magentabluesky]

Michael, you either haven't read or understood my comments because I have clearly sided with the Supreme Court's decision in that case. I stated so very plainly.

My very point! I have sided with the Supreme Court on the Joe Faust / Jack Axaopoulos Case.

Game Over!

[magentabluesky]

The only thing left to do is:

Bullsh-t Bob needs to stop promoting his lying fraud about Michael Grisham.

I expect a retraction and an apology from Bob Kuczewski and the US Hawks Board.

As a matter of fact, Bob Kuczewski and the US Hawks Board should also publicly apologize to Frank Colver and Tom ‘Red” Howard and the Hang Gliding Community for Bob Kuczewski’ behavior in this matter.

If you actually believe the terms of your registration agreement, Bob Kuczewski should resign from the US Hawks Board and be banned from the US Hawks forum for violation of the registration agreement as he has slandered my name and reputation.

“All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.”

Michael Grisham

[JoeF]

There is MUCH to unpack in this open letter to me. Warning: I will not unpack all of the points in one post; it will take many posts over days and weeks to unpack and respond to the many points. I'd like to respect and respond to all points; but that is quite a challenge; but I'll march along. And I will not address points in presented order.
===========================
1. I put in a request to Michael to restructure a key use of the quote box; there is quote box in the first opening post of this topic that makes it look like the words are my words; the words in the quote box are actually sg's words. I trust that correction will be made by Michael through a request to the webmaster. A reader should see the correct structure. Thanks in advance for the change.

2. I'd like to address a matter embedded in the first leading post. The matter concerns the following clipped paragraph:

The United States Supreme Court has ruled case after case that the owner, publisher, editor have complete authority and responsibility for their content. If they are not responsible in publishing and editing their content, the remedy is through the court system. If they are publishing untruthful information, slanderous, or defaming information damaging another party, the remedy is civil court.

I suggest that "the remedy" be changed to "a remedy" as out-of-court remedies are available.

Soon to address other points of the open letter,
Lift,
Joe

[Bob Kuczewski]

Note to Michael Grisham: Using a larger font does not make a logical conclusion from an illogical conclusion.

Your cease and desist topic has NOT been hijacked.

My Cease and Desist Letter was Hi-Jacked.

Michael, you either haven't read or understood my comments because I have clearly sided with the Supreme Court's decision in that case. I stated so very plainly.

My very point! I have sided with the Supreme Court on the Joe Faust / Jack Axaopoulos Case.

Game Over!

No one has argued that Jack couldn't ban Joe. I have simply stated that it was shameful for you (and others) to continue to patronize the site while not speaking out about what was done to Joe Faust. Do you wish to deprive me of my right to say that?

[JoeF]

Continued facing points in the topic-start letter to me:
===============================================
Pausing for the moment to look at something in this quotation from the letter:

As long as you have not been discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, disability, and in some cases sexual orientation, Jack has the absolute authority to publish, edit, or ban you from his site. He does not need any rule or reason. The above is how I understand the law in the United States of America. It has been that way for over two-hundred and twenty-eight years.

My focus for the moment is "absolute authority" to "edit" items on his site. Yes and no and more: He has not absolute authority to injure people or corporations by editing in or out matter. He has authority to do much, but he probably is not authorized to change matter in ways that unfairly (say via deliberate misrepresentations by way of editing) injure persons or corporations; he has power to do the injury; he also has the vulnerability to end up culpable for injuring and liable for damages, even on matters beyond the bases you listed. Loss of reputation via acts may play; loss of fair market processes may play. Errors deliberately made on stock matter can come back to bite publishers via calls for big remediation. E.g., sg might deliberately put a "not" in text in a way that would cause great damage to a person; if such act was found to be deliberate rather than a typo, then sg might be found to be liable for damages resulting from his deliberate insertion of "not" in someone's text. E.g., hypothetically, a poster writes "I do agree to pay $1000; and I say this publicly." If sg inserted deliberately "not" to get to "not agree" then he could be held responsible for such deliberate misrepresentation and damages might be involved.
So, editing has responsibilities under the law; we are not allowed to deliberately injure people by way of misquoting or misrepresenting authors' text. Freedom of speech probably implies being responsible for deliberately misquoting or misrepresenting the expressions of others.

[JoeF]

Continuing to address points in the topic's opening letter to me:
=======================================================

For the moment I'll put a quotation from the letter and then answer the question involved:

Joe, you have brought up the concept of responsible speech.

Do you think it is responsible speech for a Christian go to the Jewish Synagogue with their New Testament Bible and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah in the middle of a Jewish service?

Answering:
Yes and no.
Yes, if the local rabbi invited that Christian to speak in that service the shown position.
No, if ingress to the private property for that purpose was not invited. It seems reasonable that the private peace should not be disturbed without invitation. The service's people's right of privacy, religious practice, private property, and fulfillment of service speech would be violated by the suggested uninvited person.

Lift,
Joe
Soon.

[JoeF]

Continuing to address points in the topic's starter letter to me:
===============================================================================

Did you ask Jack for permission to post links to “USHGRS”?

Answering:
Yes and no.

The "yes" explanation:
I asked Jack if I could be a posting member to the forum he sponsored. He said yes via his system of registration. Over many years of posting he never had reason over my posts to address the matter of "advertising" with me. He also did not bring up "advertising" when he misrepresented what I wrote via misquoting via changing text in my name. At any point Jack could say that anyone's any post is advertising a poster's interests and then apply the "ask permission" gate over anyone's anything. He has the right to interpret his rule any way he wishes even to the point of having everyone's posts be interpreted as "advertising." Jack has let flow linking to hang gliding matter that did not involve raw selling of products. USHGRS could be deemed as a product sold for zero costs; sg did not do that, but let the USHGRS flow until the point he erupted as he did; but in the eruption, he still did not use the "advertising" rule or "spam" rule either; he had the option, but did not use those options.


The "no" explanation:
I did not start the USHGRS topic in sg hang gliding flow by first pointedly going to Jack openly or on the side asking: "Jack, will it be OK with you to announce and describe the new hang gliding service USHGRS? USHGRS will not be charging anything to pilots; the staff at USHGRS will be volunteering their time and effort." or the like. Nada.

Comment:
However, I could understand and appreciate how Jack might not want USHGRS to be. And I respect his choosing to off USHGRS from his site. That said, such does not relieve him from being culpable for certain of his actions involving misquoting me or saying untrue things in the course of publicly reaching a certain allowed goal of his. There is an act of banning and there is a set of acts that preceded banning; he stumbled in his acts preceding banning and in acts following banning.

I'll return to face other points in the topic's lead letter.
Lift,
Joe