Do Tad's words dilute his message?

[bobk]

I've been a big advocate for giving Tad a voice in hang gliding.

• When I was Regional Director I asked the USHPA Board to consider Tad's ideas rather than paying their lawyer to attack him.
• I specifically wrote to Tad's email address to invite him to participate on the US Hawks forum.
• I've spent a lot of time talking to him on the phone (and I appreciate his time as well).

In other words, I think I've walked the walk in terms of trying to help Tad get his message out.

But I feel that Tad undermines his message by the way he presents his ideas. He uses foul language, personal attacks, and his posts are often too long to be read by very many people.

So in the spirit of helping Tad be more effective, I'd like to ask the members of this forum if they feel that Tad's presentation is hurting his message. All comments are welcome. Thanks.

[Tad Eareckson]

Please treat the admin as a regular user. As long as you follow the rules, there is NO CHANCE you will banned because you disagree with the admin. The admin would like to be part of this community too without having to walk on egg shells because people think his word holds more weight for whatever reason. It does not. But the admin will do his job as moderator when he has to. But please follow the rules and don't make him do it, he doesn't enjoy that part.

P.S. No posts or links about Bob K or Scott C Wise. Those two are poison to this sport and will be permanently banned from this site in every possible way imaginable.

[bobk]

I never said you didn't have a great sense of humor!!

[Tad Eareckson]

What makes you think I'm joking?

[Zack C]

But I feel that Tad undermines his message by the way he presents his ideas. He uses foul language, personal attacks, and his posts are often too long to be read by very many people.

So in the spirit of helping Tad be more effective, I'd like to ask the members of this forum if they feel that Tad's presentation is hurting his message.

In a word, yes. But he's well aware of my stance, and I'd much rather discuss the content of his messages than his approach, so I don't bring it up much.

Tad's presentation makes no difference to me...I evaluate his posts for their content and not how warm and fuzzy they make me feel. But based on people's reactions to him, I think I'm unusual in that regard (it baffles me when people call Tad a 'troll'...).

As for the length of his posts, brevity is nice, but I'd much rather read an intelligent, well thought-out post than most of the short but inconsequential posts I see on other forums. Some things just can't be said or explained succinctly.

Zack

[Tad Eareckson]

Thanks Zack.

My ban button doesn't seem to be working. Would you mind taking him out for me?

[bobk]

Hmmmm....

Three relatively short replies ...
Way shorter and way more humorous than mine ...
No foul language or wishing anyone was dead ...

OK, WHO ARE YOU and HOW DID YOU GET TAD'S PASSWORD?

[Tad Eareckson]

Kind of a slow learner, aren't ya BOB?

I thought Post 2 would've been a sufficient tipoff.

[bobk]

Kind of a slow learner, aren't ya BOB?
I thought Post 2 would've been a sufficient tipoff.

Aha!!! So you are an imposter!!

Come to think of it ... that's not all bad.

Carry on.

[miguel]

I like Tad's posts. There is something to be learned in all of them. He does not kow tow, in reverence, to the so called gods of hang gliding. I have no problem to the length of them. It is refreshing to read the links and examples of the many points that he makes.

That said, I do not care for the foul language and the personal attacks. Personal attacks and foul language are the tools of people with weak or wrong arguments. They are a definite turn-off to the casual reader.

It would not take much time to reread the article and edit out the negativity. The articles are strong enough to stand without negativity.