The Bob Show

[bobk]

Do you think you did anything wrong or not?

OF COURSE I DO, BOB!!!

If you had stopped right there, then we might be making some progress. But you went on to justify your actions with faulty logic. Let's take a look...

I mean it's illegal, right? And if it weren't wrong it wouldn't be illegal, right?

We know that not everything illegal is wrong. So you're using that doubt to throw doubt on your situation. Faulty.

And, in fact, it's SO illegal that the legal - not to mention social - consequences are literally about forty times worse than they are for someone who gets drunk and runs a Hummer at fifty miles an hour over a twelve year old boy and his bicycle.

You're setting up a faulty comparison between kids being molested and being run over by Hummers. How about if we'd rather have neither? Again, you're using faulty logic.

And that's the way it SHOULD and MUST BE. Because in the process of a male child predator taking advantage of a gay twelve year old boy's unshaped innocence for his own pleasures he inevitably condemns his victim to a life of shame and self doubt or confusion - possibly BOTH.

This is a mostly true statement, but you've cast it in a mocking tone to make it seem untrue. It's skillfully done, but faulty with respect to assessing the damage of your actions.

Ask any gay twelve year old boy... Would you rather:

- have an intimate relationship with an Oscar Wilde, Errol Flynn, James Dean and be inevitably condemned to a life of shame and self doubt or confusion, possibly both; or

- be thrown under a speeding Hummer?

Another false choice. I suspect most 12 year old boys would prefer neither death nor a life of shame, self doubt, and confusion. More faulty logic from you Tad.

Well, true, a few of them might respond "A" but at that age they're not really capable of making good decisions in the interests of their safety and well-being so a responsible adult - such as yourself or any rated tug pilot - can check "B" for them.

And if a gay former twelve year old boy at age thirty-something were to recall an "A" option as a positive aspect of his life we would hafta discount that data point because he is - by definition - hopelessly damaged and confused and thus incapable of providing an acceptable response.

And because he does not view his relationship as totally and unambiguously wrong he might HIMSELF be a danger to people of varying ages and thus would not be allowed to post on The Bob Show - 'cause nowadays ya just can't be too careful, right?

This is more mocking and twisting to divert attention from the fact that you took advantage of a 12 year old boy for your own pleasure regardless of, and inconsiderate of, the consequences to that boy. You need to face that and really really feel sorry about that if you're going to make any progress. So far, you've just posted a list of excuses and justifications for your abuse. You can't face what you've done and so you try justify it. Sorry, that's more faulty logic.

Now a Mary Kay Letourneau situation... Not such a BFD - a lot less shame and self doubt or confusion, right?

Statistically, there's much less chance of doing damage in that situation. That doesn't make it right either, but since you're using more faulty logic (if SHE did it, then it MUST be OK), then in the context of that faulty logic, her crime is less severe than yours. Sorry, you fail the 5th grade logic test on this one as well.

Tad, I'm sorry to have to bring all this up. You know that I gave you the option to peacefully coexist. It was you who forced this discussion with your need to "go to war" with anyone who disagrees with you. Having said that, this topic is instructive because it shows how faulty your logic can be. It shows how you use faulty rhetoric to twist reality to suit you. Unfortunately, you do it very skillfully, and that's what makes you dangerous on a hang gliding forum. That's the real message that I'm trying to make with this discussion. I'm trying to show everyone that you are capable of justifying anything if it preserves your ego ... regardless of how faulty or damaging or dangerous it might be to other pilots and 12 year old boys.

[Tad Eareckson]

If you had stopped right there, then we might be making some progress.

No, if I had stopped right there YOU - and your right wing blatantly homophobic political agenda - would've been making some progress. That ain't never gonna happen on my watch.

So you're using that doubt to throw doubt on your situation. Faulty.

Nah. That was all sarcasm.

This is more mocking...

Yeah.

...and twisting...

And that's just super that you can state all that as indisputable fact.

Statistically, there's much less chance of chance of doing damage in that situation.

1. Where did you get your statistics? The American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or both?
2. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for putting that in print!!!

Tad, I'm sorry to have to bring all this up.

Lemme try once more... You DIDN'T and DON'T *HAVE TO* bring this up. That was a CHOICE you made and are making. And - as we all WELL KNOW - choices have consequences.

You know that I gave you the option to peacefully coexist.

Sorry Bob, that was never gonna happen.

What will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA or HGAA?

You will ... hopefully. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Everyone has to do their part once in a while. If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out. One big difference between the US Hawks and other organizations is that the US Hawks really does honor the free speech of its members.

I actually believe in that sorta thing.

It was you who forced this discussion.

No freakin'...

http://www.kitestrings.org/post1019.html#p1019

...way, Bob. I wanted to address hang gliding issues. You wanted to shut me down 'cause my vision didn't line up with yours. So you used Davis/Rooney tactics on me.

Having said that, this topic is instructive because it shows how faulty your logic can be. It shows how you use faulty rhetoric to twist reality to suit you.

Different people are gonna have different takes on what's going on.

Unfortunately, you do it very skillfully...

Thank you.

...and that's what makes you dangerous on a hang gliding forum.

Thanks again. I always try to do my best.

That's the real message that I'm trying to make with this discussion. I'm trying to show everyone that you are capable of justifying anything if it preserves your ego ... regardless of how faulty or damaging or dangerous it might be to other pilots and 12 year old boys.

Yeah, well... Given the ammunition you're using and the frothing at the mouth social climate and all the bullshit propaganda in which the public is constantly bathed I'm actually astounded that you're having such a pathetic level of success.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=912
Safe-Splat

Joe Faust - 2012/01/16 06:24:46 UTC

Tow shares on project:

1. Motivation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjncKQ02FJ8


2. Plate inner backed with frequency-lowering shock-absorbing foam shaped to fit pilot curves. High-frequency tends to shatter bones; this is partially mitigated by lowering the frequencies of impact. Spreading the forces by outer plates also helps.

How 'bout while we're working on that we appoint another committee to come up with some kind of engineering solution whereby...

Donnell Hewett - 1981/05

Now I've heard the argument that "Weak links always break at the worst possible time, when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation," and that "More people have been injured because of a weak link than saved by one."

...when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation it can be retained on tow?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=818
Peter (Link Knife) Birren

Peter Birren - 2011/11/29 20:05:46 UTC

So why haven't you re-written them, correcting the physics professors obvious errors?

Donnell, Peter... Any thoughts?

[bobk]

For the record...

I've called Tad on numerous occasions asking for a "cease fire" in this senseless battle of destruction. In fact, I just spoke with him a few minutes ago again asking that we focus on improving the sport of hang gliding rather than bashing each other.

At this point, I am voluntarily laying down my arms with the hope that Tad will do the same. I won't reply to his previous post at this time because I believe that will only escalate the destruction.

Tad, if you want a fight with me over this issue, then I won't back down. But let's just be clear that it is YOUR choice to continue and the consequences are on YOUR shoulders ... not mine.

I would much prefer to spend my time working on an on-line hang gliding training manual at http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=25. Tad, if you'd like to help, you're welcome to post articles here on KiteStrings and they will be integrated with proper attribution for your work. I think that's a reasonable way to proceed, but again, that's up to you. I don't think you'll take me up on this offer, because I think you get more enjoyment from the destruction of the "war" than you do from the productivity of the peace. Maybe you'll prove me wrong...

[Tad Eareckson]

I've called Tad on numerous occasions asking for a "cease fire"...

I think you've only called me on one occasion asking for a cease fire.

...in this senseless battle of destruction.

1. I don't see my position in this battle as senseless.
2. I think there's some pretty good evidence that I'm not alone in this position.
3. I'd much rather be building stuff than destroying stuff but sometimes ya gotta do the latter before you can do the former.

In fact, I just spoke with him a few minutes ago again asking that we focus on improving the sport of hang gliding rather than bashing each other.

1. As far as I'm concerned the sport of hang gliding can go fuck itself if it isn't made fair to its participants.
2. In order for progress to be made towards that goal there's an unimaginable amount of bashing which needs to happen.

At this point, I am voluntarily laying down my arms with the hope that Tad will do the same.

1. I had an enormous amount of effort invested in steering The Bob Show in the direction I - and probably a few others - believe it has to go to benefit hang gliding.

2. You arbitrarily locked me out with no pretense whatsoever of anything remotely resembling due process.

3. A cease fire leaves you in full control of the turf you took "about a month" ago with no repercussions.

I won't reply to his previous post at this time because I believe that will only escalate the destruction.

1. It doesn't appear that you even read the previous post.
2. I'm guessing you meant the post previous to the previous post.
3. I believe that you NOT replying to that post will only escalate the destruction.

Tad, if you want a fight with me over this issue, then I won't back down.

Good. It would be so much less fun for me if you did.

But let's just be clear that it is YOUR choice to continue and the consequences are on YOUR shoulders ... not mine.

Yeah, this is an example of where we tend to develop friction. You state positions and assumptions as facts.

I would much prefer to spend my time working on an on-line hang gliding training manual...

Yeah, me too.

Tad, if you'd like to help...

1. I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do which is what I've been doing:

http://www.kitestrings.org/post2.html#p2

2. I have some very good people on this forum, they've learned some very valuable stuff from me and I've learned some very valuable stuff from them.

3. And, in my humble opinion, this is the best, most solid, and most trustworthy hang gliding resource on the face of the planet.

4. You - and anyone else on the face of the planet - can suck a lot of valuable information up from here and do whatever the hell you want with it.

5. But I've got way less than zero interest in helping you build an organization on the foundation you're laying.

You wanna deescalate things you can start by getting in line with your mission statement - the way we stay in line with our mission statement. Matter of fact... We're staying in line with a lot of your mission statement a lot better than you are - as evidenced by your continued, uninterrupted, and unrestricted presence here.

[bobk]

I've called Tad on numerous occasions asking for a "cease fire"...

I think you've only called me on one occasion asking for a cease fire.

Let's see how fallible your memory is ...

Subject: Peaceful Coexistence
Date: December 14, 2011 1:27pm

Hello Tad,

I just wanted to codify in writing what I had been proposing on the phone today.

I feel that we have some common goals and some conflicting goals. Unfortunately, I feel that the conflicting goals will end up destroying our ability to cooperate. That's the "train wreck" that I mentioned during our phone calls.

I believe if we continue down the current path, that train wreck will destroy our ability to cooperate on any of our shared goals, and we will walk away as enemies. I would like to avert that train wreck with the simple suggestion that we use our two forums for the different purposes that we've defined and that we mutually support the two forums for those different purposes.

More specifically, I would like to see you voluntarily resign from active participation in the US Hawks with a statement that you support what we are doing but want to focus on your work at Kite Strings. I will follow that with a statement that we've appreciated your contributions to the US Hawks and we'll be following your progress on Kite Strings as well as seeking your specialized advice as we progress in building the US Hawks. I'll encourage cross-linking to Kite Strings, and you'll encourage cross-linking to US Hawks. We'll both benefit.

If we can do something like that, then I think it will help both of our causes and strengthen our ability to cooperate on our shared objectives. If we cannot do something like that, then I think we'll end up harming both our shared objectives and our non-shared objectives as this train wreck evolves. This is a sincere offer to try to work together, and I hope you'll take it in that spirit.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

Gee I really love the documentation that email provides.

[bobk]

Matter of fact... We're staying in line with a lot of your mission statement a lot better than you are - as evidenced by your continued, uninterrupted, and unrestricted presence here.

How about Jim Rooney's continued, uninterrupted, and unrestricted presence here? You yourself have stated that there are people (like Jim) who are not welcomed here. Have you forgotten that as well?

[bobk]

Look Tad,

My offer still stands. I suggest that we back down from trying to destroy each other and move on with trying to improve the sport of hang gliding. There are many ways we can work together to benefit the sport. Neither of us will get everything that we want from that arrangement, but we'll each get more than we're getting now.

As far as returning you to the US Hawks forum, I don't see that happening as long as you remain an unrepentant child molester. That's both a moral and legal judgement on my part and I take sole responsibility for that decision. When the US Hawks has a functioning Board of Directors, you're welcome to appeal that decision with them, but I don't see me changing my mind. If you want to "go to war" with me over that non-hang-gliding issue, then that's your call. I tend to fire back when fired upon, and I don't want to hear any complaining if things get personal in those exchanges. Again, you get to make the decisions. I'm just letting you know what lies ahead down both of those paths.

The olive branch is extended. I hope you'll accept it.

Bob Kuczewski

[Tad Eareckson]

Gee I really love the documentation that email provides.

Yeah, me too.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=884&p=3647
The Bob Show

That was shortly BEFORE you pulled my plug.

But so what anyway? Was that really worth the bandwidth?

How about Jim Rooney's continued, uninterrupted, and unrestricted presence here?

Did you READ the mission statement on the link I just provided? (Just kidding.)

Zack wrote it with zero input from yours truly - but I do happen to be in total accord with it. Lemme cite:

The purpose of Kite Strings is to foster serious discussion regarding the practices and technologies of modern hang gliding. This is a forum ruled by science, truth, facts, reason, and logic. Anyone with a respect for these principles and a willingness to learn and engage in rational discussion is welcome to participate.

You find me the slightest shred of evidence that that asshole in any way qualifies for participation.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25129
Ridgerodent gone?

Sam Kellner - 2011/09/10 02:24:50 UTC

I was working up some harmony for Rooney Tunes.

Ditto for your buddy Sam. But he's on this list nevertheless.

As far as I'm concerned you don't belong on this forum either. You don't have any respect for science - you start on assumptions with zero supporting evidence and dig in no matter what data gets thrown at you.

And...

As for rules, just keep it civil, stay on topic, keep topics in line with the forum purpose, and don't lie or misrepresent others' statements.

Zack C - 2011/12/17 14:56:03 UTC

1. You continually misrepresent Tad's statements.

But, what the hell...

I suggest that we back down from trying to destroy each other and move on with trying to improve the sport of hang gliding.

I'm trying to think whether I want YOU destroyed or just what you're doing.

Rooney's pure unadulterated evil - he can go straight to hell and stay there.

You seem to have a few principles here and there but you always seem to be working on ways to fine print your way out of and/or around them.

Note that within the past month (barely)...

http://www.kitestrings.org/post1018.html#p1018

...I defended you on the points I thought you merited defending.

There are many ways we can work together to benefit the sport.

You don't want physics based rules placed on hang gliding. You just want religion based rules arbitrarily made up and applied to whoever gets in your way. I'm not sure our visions for the sport are very compatible.

Neither of us will get everything that we want from that arrangement...

I mostly just wanted to get some solid SOPs in place.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
Training Manual Comments / Contribution

Bill Cummings - 2012/01/10 14:04:59 UTC

Tad's procedures for aerotowing should become part of any training manual.
Tad must have put hour upon hour of gathering together his written procedure.
I come very close to total agreement with Tad's procedure and we are not far apart on weaklink strength.

You were gonna make sure that was never gonna happen. By priority now is to just continue working with the small handful of individuals I have who are interested in doing things right.

As far as returning you to the US Hawks forum, I don't see that happening as long as you remain an unrepentant child molester.

1. Yeah Bob, what you REALLY want in US Hawks is REPENTANT child molesters. You want genuinely abusive people who tell you what you wanna hear.

2. Have you looked up the word "molest"? What's your evidence and justification for applying it to me?

3. It's a fake issue anyway. There are no people of people of varying ages on hang gliding forums anyway.

4. And if there were I'd probably despise them just as much as I despise damn near all of their people of nonvarying age counterparts.

That's both a moral...

Yeah Bob, you're an absolute paragon of morality.

...and legal judgement...

Bullshit. It's not based upon any state or federal law. It's just something you decided to do on your own.

When the US Hawks has a functioning Board of Directors...

When USHGA 2 has a functioning Board of Directors it'll be composed of Sam and other opinion based Rooney harmonizing assholes you've manipulated into position. Tell them they can go fuck themselves in advance for me.

If you want to "go to war" with me over that non-hang-gliding issue...

I don't need to, Bob. I can chew you to shreds just fine strictly on hang gliding issues.

I tend to fire back when fired upon, and I don't want to hear any complaining if things get personal in those exchanges.

IF things GET personal? To how much MORE personal a level do you think you can possibly move the battle?

Again, you get to make the decisions.

We BOTH get to make the decisions. But you get to make decisions in more places than I do.

I'm just letting you know what lies ahead down both of those paths.

I'm guessing it'll be pretty much the same stuff back down the path behind us.

The olive branch is extended. I hope you'll accept it.

Here's what you told me to do when I signed up eleven months ago:

If you see something that's not being done correctly, then it's your duty to speak out.

That's what I'm letting you know lies ahead down any path I happen to take.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=912
Safe-Splat

Joe Faust - 2012/01/16 06:24:46 UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjncKQ02FJ8

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/01/16 06:48:19 UTC

Excellent videos Joe!!

We could use the towing example in several places in the training manual. It's obviously applicable to towing, but it also shows how long it takes to recover (or not recover) from a stall break at low altitude. Do you know what caused the rapid pitch up just prior to the stall?

Who gives a rat's ass? Shit happens - in both free and tow flights. Especially with students. That's why we've gotta do as much on the ground BEFORE the flight to minimize the amount of shit that can happen. Especially with students.

Manned Kiting
The Basic Handbook of Tow Launched Hang Gliding
Daniel F. Poynter
1974

"The greatest dangers are a rope break or a premature release." - Richard Johnson

How come you're not the least concerned with the issue of the glider coming off tow?

Thanks for a great find!!

Joe Faust - 2012/01/17 21:10:25 UTC

On that last video: I do not have the detail story behind the sudden pitch up to stall. Open matter until we get it.
Yes, for a particular glider with a particular pilot: a certain recovery vertical distance! Such distance is something that should be well known by each pilot.

Lessee... Need about forty feet, have about thirty feet.

Bill Cummings - 2012/01/17 23:23:47 UTC

From the looks of the "hang gliding ouch" and the other videos by harastee their tow method looks to have the primary release hanging from the keel ahead of the hang strap.

1. WELL ahead of the hang strap. Ever wonder what the glider will do if it suddenly finds all of the tow tension going to that point? Just kidding.
2. It's a typical Wallaby arrangement 'cept with the bottom end going under the basetube to the pilot's hips.

It looks to be a two point bridle (keel to tow/ring to pilots waste.)

Yep, pilot waste. That pretty much sums up hang glider towing worldwide.

I think it looks like a one to one bridle.
On a video Hg kurs Lillestrom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgUmKpA81oU


3:32 and 3:40 it looks like a barrel release near his body/leg.

A nice short, fat, bent pin barrel release.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/26 08:24:31 UTC

Bobby's a fucking genius when it comes to this shit...

Bobby's a fucking genius when it comes to this shit.

(Back up release.)

Yeah Bill, a BACKUP release. So WHEN the Wallaby release malfunctions you can try to pry the Bailey open and ASSUME the bottom end of the bridle will clear the tow ring.

Speaking of assuming... Really great everybody's so sure that everybody's hooked in that nobody feels the need to do, require, look for a hook-in check.

They all seem to be dragging the un-threaded tow bridle upon landing.
I can't see how they are activating the release.

Good. That means that they're able to get to the downtube mounted release lever without too much commotion.

Speculation:
1) Weaklink break during a steep unrestrained climb.
2) Release during a steep unrestrained climb.

Right.

"The greatest dangers are a rope break or a premature release." - Richard Johnson

Resulting in a hammerhead stall too close to the ground.

Right.

"The greatest dangers are a rope break or a premature release." - Richard Johnson

The motor rpm didn't increase at the start of the steep climb out.
It was overcast but that wouldn't necessarily rule out flying into a thermal to cause the steep climb out.

Or maybe a dust devil. Or maybe a tractor beam from an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Did the pilot push out to cause the steep climb out?

Did the pilot PULL IN to RESIST the steep climb-out?

Did the pilot climb out of the lower wind speed gradient into a faster wind speed to start the steep climb out?

Look at the takeoff run, look at the grass in the foreground, do the math.

The cause of this crash should not be placed on a release failure or a weaklink failure.

No, OF COURSE IT SHOULDN'T!!!

Donnell Hewett - 1981/05

Now I've heard the argument that "Weak links always break at the worst possible time, when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation," and that "More people have been injured because of a weak link than saved by one."

If it were that would mean that Richard actually knew what he was talking about and Donnell was full of shit.

A pilot should never tow in such a fashion that does not plan, at any second, for a weaklink failure, line break, scooter failure, encountering a thermal, or wind gradient.

1. Yeah Bill, he SHOULD.

2. And he should also never tow in such a fashion that he HAS a weaklink failure, line break, or premature release 'cause sometimes - despite everyone's best efforts and intentions - things don't always go the way you think they will just before the glider starts accelerating. (Remember "NMERider - Take One"? Just kidding.)

3. And his fucking driver should also have his shit together on the equipment under his control 'cause he's got that glider's life in his hands and sometimes ya just can't afford to have just one more thing go wrong.

Did you wanna say ANYTHING of substance on the issue of that weak link failing? Just kidding.