Kite Strings

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

bobk wrote:Just so that I understand you, Zack, is that the extent of the "mistreatment" that you've spoken about?

This discussion should be off-line (actually, it should never have existed in the first place), but it's kind of late for that...

There's really nothing I can say that Tad hasn't already said better, but in the interest of hearing it from someone else...
1. You continually misrepresent Tad's statements.
2. You banish him to the basement without any justification other than some faux 'experiment'.
3. You hear a rumor concerning Tad's personal life that was already addressed by the legal system decades ago and somehow decide it has some kind of relevancy to US Hawks.
4. You thus decide it is your duty to pry into Tad's personal life (which is 'none of your goddam business'), and as much as Tad would rather not talk to you about it, he is forced to to straighten the record from your unnamed source.
5. You then reference this discussion publicly, forcing Tad to straighten the record publicly, and maintain your reference was vague enough that it was his choice to bring it up. You probably believe that, but it ain't hard to read between the lines:
- 'The topic we discussed on the phone'? That must be pretty bad...it can't even be mentioned. Couldn't be the cussing or anything else Bob has criticized Tad for before as Bob's never been shy about that stuff.
- 'Safe place for people of varying ages?' I'm pretty sure he means 'safe place for children' since there's not a whole lot that's safe for children but not adults.
- And Tad has not given Bob assurances that children are safe with Tad on the forum?
- So we have an unmentionable topic involving Tad making US Hawks unsafe for children. Not a big stretch to suspect Tad is a child molester...and it's human nature to suspect the worst.
6. Probably not many people read the basement, so this personal issue is somewhat buried, but you then feel the need to reference it on the main forum without any explanation of relevancy.
7. Finally, you ban Tad from your forum, rendering your self-righteous judgment that he has not paid enough for his crime, with only vague references to the unsubstantiated belief that his presence on the forum is a threat to children as an explanation.

So yeah, I can kinda see why Tad would be pissed at you.

I'm glad at least that when you solicited members' opinions on 'how to handle' the situation they were mostly silent except to express distaste in the subject being broached at all.

bobk wrote:Zack, you can ignore this fundamental problem and blame me for this fiasco or you can provide feedback to try to help Tad understand where he's gone astray and to hopefully correct his thinking.

No, I'm not going to try to 'correct' Tad, as I don't know anything about his past personal life, it's 'none of my goddam business', it has no relevancy to hang gliding or the mission of this forum, and I'm not about to get on a high horse and moralize.

I don't know whether you were genuinely doing what you felt was the right thing to do or just looking for convenient justification to finally can Tad, but I believe your actions were inappropriate and set a terrible precedent for your organization.

1. You continually misrepresent Tad's statements.

Yep, the OTHER thing I'm always gonna be remembered on The Bob Show as is the nut case who wanted to:

A - Require ALL pilots to launch with a tight hang strap in ALL conditions.

on pain of rating revocation. I wonder how many hundreds of hours I spent trying to deal with that crap when I could've been moving the conversation forward.

2. You banish him to the basement without any justification other than some faux 'experiment'.

Half the time the justification was a faux experiment. The other two thirds I was being disciplined for some undefined transgression. Bob could never quite remember which but tended to favor the latter.

Abraham Lincoln

No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar.

Too bad Bob wasn't properly evaluated in grade school and advised to pursue some other career path.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Oh well, Bob can fool the total morons with which he wants to build his organization all of the time and come up with some pretense to silence anybody he can't.

7. Finally, you ban Tad from your forum, rendering your self-righteous judgment that he has not paid enough for his crime, with only vague references to the unsubstantiated belief that his presence on the forum is a threat to children as an explanation.

Bob was ALWAYS gonna ban me. If this manna from heaven hadn't dropped in his lap his "experiment" would've proven his predictions right - even if the wire had gone totally dead for "about a month".

I'm glad at least that when you solicited members' opinions on 'how to handle' the situation they were mostly silent except to express distaste in the subject being broached at all.

Don't be too glad. Bob was ASSUMING (always one of his favorite pastimes) that everyone would be rushing to his side with pitchforks and torches and he'd be able to say, "I'm really sorry, Tad - but it's pretty obvious that your continued presence here is just too disruptive for our organization to be able to function and accomplish its goals." When that backfired he had to create other justifications.

I don't know whether you were genuinely doing what you felt was the right thing to do...

- Not a snowball's chance in hell. And I can - AND WILL - document that from the public record beyond any shadow of a doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

- Bob has such defective wiring and so many loose screws that he'd be incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong even if he cared what it was.

...or just looking for convenient justification to finally can Tad, but I believe your actions were inappropriate and set a terrible precedent for your organization.

What organization? About a dozen people who make a post every now and then which averages under a dozen hits?

...terrible precedent...

Yeah, Bob you GUTTED your "organization". You:

- betrayed damn near all the principles you laid down in your mission statement - which were just about all Hawks had going for it.

- ha've demonstrated that your word means NOTHING and you can never be trusted.

- have revealed yourself to be a bigot.

- sent a message to every current and potential member that if he doesn't toe YOUR line well enough to suit you you'll dig into his personal background and try to use whatever you can get to your political advantage. (And I'll tell ya sumpin', Bob... I know A LOT of hang gliding people who'd REALLY prefer that you not do that.)

Davis, Jack, and Rooney are obvious stupid, lying, scumbags. It only took about three interactions with Rooney when he was a Two at Ridgely a bit over nine years ago for me to realize he was somebody I wanted absolutely nothing to do with - and another one or two to despise him.

Bob comes across as an intelligent, articulate, principled, personable, likable guy and it's really hard to hate him to an appropriate, proportional degree - and that makes him way more dangerous than the people with whom he aligns himself.

My stated reason for participating in US Hawks was to help form an organization which would produce instructors and tow operators whom I could trust not to maim or kill my (or anyone's) nephew (or niece). There's no way in hell that can happen following the precedent Bob has established and I'll do what I can to make sure it never gets off the ground - even though it's my strong belief that it's nothing but smoking wreckage at this point anyway.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting

Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC

Re: proposals

It's not just concern for meet directors and policy makers...it's about our continued existence as an association. It's about minimizing the chance of our getting sued out of existence. We're one lawsuit away from that, all the time, and we think hard about it.

And I'm biding my time on the other one too.

P.S. Bob,

Even if - by some unimaginable twist of fate - US Hawks were to come out of this technically sound, I'd still steer my nephew, or anybody else, widely clear of the organization 'cause, like you said...

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/15 01:26:16 UTC

Some things are more important than a hang gliding club.

Some things are WAY more important than a hang gliding club - or, for that matter, hang gliding PERIOD.

Bob Kuczewski:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=463
Davis Straub's "Oz Report" Conflict of Interest

2011/02/18 03:17:00 UTC

Tad, you're very prolific, and you make lots of good points. I'm not surprised that anyone who disagrees with you would want to ban you ... rather than actually debate you. That's the price of being too competent.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=463
Davis Straub's "Oz Report" Conflict of Interest

2011/02/24 16:08:00 UTC

Actually, your writing, comprehension, logic, and questioning is excellent as well (in my opinion).

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=646
Failure to Hook In

2011/04/28 15:29:19 UTC

I've been having a good discussion with Tad Eareckson about hook in failures. The discussion has been mostly over the phone. Tad has some solid ideas about verifying hook in just prior to launch, and they're worth reading. Here's a link to some of his discussions on "KiteStrings":

http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/topic9.html

Thanks for your work, Tad.

So Bob has established that I'm competent; my writing, comprehension, and logic is excellent; and I have some solid ideas.

Translation: I can keep people from getting killed.

And:

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=463
Davis Straub's "Oz Report" Conflict of Interest

2011/02/18 03:17:00 UTC

I joined the kitestrings forum, and I'm happy to cross link them as an "Affiliate" as I have with Joe Faust's HGAUSA on our US Hawks front page.

he has a prominent link to Kite Strings on his front page.

But, of course, Bob's not really interested in using enforceable rules and standards to keep people from getting killed. Bob's all about providing a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, serial killing halfwits a variety of opinions and giving them the freedom to do, use, and teach whatever the hell they feel - in their opinions - works best for them (and, of course, the people on the downwind ends of their ropes or clipped in along with them (hopefully)).

Translation: Let people keep going exactly as they have for the past thirty years 'cause one death per thousand participants per year is something that 999 out of a thousand participants per year can live with.

I oppose this 'cause I've known a few of those 0.1 percenters (along with a lot of others who just get demolished) fairly well and am of the persuasion that we can and should be doing a lot better. So I start winning battles and come into conflict with Bob.

Then:

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

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/13 05:55:39 UTC

If I boot you permanently it will be due to my concerns over the topic we discussed on the phone. This forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. You have not given me any assurances that's true with you on this forum.

all the sudden Bob becomes very concerned that my participation in the forum will make it a place not safe for people of varying ages to visit and uses my refusal to rubber-stamp his clueless, bigoted, religious values as his excuse to pull the plug.

HOWEVER:

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/14 21:27:28 UTC

...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.

1. If I VOLUNTARILY resign from active participation in the US Hawks - and thus allow Bob to maintain some pretense of having actual principles - he'll maintain the link to Kite Strings such that when people of varying ages visit his front page they'll be one click away from a child predator who takes advantage of unshaped innocence for his own pleasures and, in the process, condemns his victims to lives of shame and self-doubt or confusion.

2. But if I force him to boot me and thus gut all the stated principles of his organization he'll sever the link which he has acknowledged will reduce the chances of people of varying ages being slammed into the runway or smashed on the rocks below the ramp and leave them to likes of...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skysailingtowing/message/6726
Weaklinks

Peter Birren - 2008/10/27 23:41:49 UTC

So you pull whatever release you have but the one hand still on the basetube isn't enough to hold the nose down and you pop up and over into an unplanned semi-loop.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=802
AL's Second flight at Packsaddle how it went

Rick Masters - 2011/10/19 22:47:17 UTC

At that moment, I would banish all concern about launching unhooked. I had taken care of it. It was done. It was out of my mind.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=821
Fatal hang gliding accident

Sam Kellner - 2011/11/07 02:47:58 UTC

Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in.

...the good ol' boys - at long last free to roam absent the fear of being disemboweled on a daily basis.

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

I don't know whether you were genuinely doing what you felt was the right thing to do...

No way in hell. This was all about power grabbing. Either I'm dangerous to people of varying ages or not and my site is safe for people of varying ages or not. Bob can't have it either way based upon how good or bad I make him look.

Zack wrote:You thus decide it is your duty to pry into Tad's personal life (which is 'none of your goddam business'), and as much as Tad would rather not talk to you about it, he is forced to to straighten the record from your unnamed source.

Tad Eareckson wrote:You sent a message to every current and potential member that if he doesn't toe YOUR line well enough to suit you you'll dig into his personal background and try to use whatever you can get to your political advantage.

To both of you ... I didn't "dig into" anyone's background or personal life. One of our members called me with a concern about Tad's past. I responded by going directly to Tad and asking him if it was true and trying to understand the facts and what ramifications they might have. I asked Tad if he felt he had done anything wrong by having a homosexual relationship with a 12 year old boy. His response was not reassuring and he offered no solution to mitigate the possibility for this to happen again. I tried to work out an arrangement that would not embarrass Tad further, but he blurted out his past on a public forum.

I resent the implication that I "dug into" or "pried into" anyone's past, and I would like an apology from both of you ... but I won't be holding my breath.

One of our members called me with a concern about Tad's past.

1. Was this a member of a varying age who was afraid I'd PM him and arrange a rendezvous at the mall in Sioux Falls?

2. Fuck him. It was dealt with by the goddam legal system two and a half decades ago in a manner which would have made both your hearts overflow with joy. (Minus the part where I got to pound that asshole's head repeatedly into the concrete floor. That was just fun for me.)

3. I have a concern about an instructor like Steve Wendt coming in here after sending one of his students up on dangerous illegal tow equipment and her needing fifteen hours of surgery to put her face back together. But I'm betting you wouldn't go directly to him to reassure you with a solution to mitigate the possibility of that happening again.

4. I have a concern about an instructor like Steve Wendt coming in here after signing students off without teaching or requiring the hook-in check component of each rating and getting one of them killed as a consequence. You've already said you wouldn't have a problem with that.

5. I have REAL BIG concern over assholes like Sam telling everyone:

Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in.

But that just never seems to be an issue you consider to be worth addressing.

I responded by going directly to Tad and asking him if it was true and trying to understand the facts and what ramifications they might have.

1. It was none of your goddam business. You wanna have rules about what kinds of people are decent enough to be permitted the privilege of participating in a cult you control then state them in advance instead of making them up as you go along.

2. IF you do anything that stupid, however, you better be real careful about listing disqualifying issues 'cause I'm probably gonna be able to document enough dirt on enough people to kill your membership list a lot more effectively than I ever could just by being on it. And I'll bet for every one person you ax you're gonna scare off three or four more.

I asked Tad if he felt he had done anything wrong by having a homosexual relationship with a 12 year old boy.

You don't catch on real quick, do you? You keep tacking on the "homo-" prefix - where it rather OBVIOUSLY doesn't need to be - 'cause the same sex aspect is a REAL BIG part of the problem you have with it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

His response was not reassuring and he offered no solution to mitigate the possibility for this to happen again.

WAY out of your jurisdiction and WAY over of your pay grade.

I tried to work out an arrangement...

There was no ARRANGEMENT that needed working out.

...that would not embarrass Tad further...

You didn't embarrass me one molecule's worth. Nobody has or will be able to do that.

...but he blurted out his past on a public forum.

1. Bullshit. You outed me on that forum. (Did you bother reading and THINKING about Zack's post?)

2. If you had bothered to read the Davis Show traffic I referred US Hawks to in late August and my response to it here you none of this would be a big surprise.

3. But none of this was really a big surprise anyway because I recall in a telephone conversation earlier last summer you mentioning something on the issue that had circulated from Rooney.

... but I won't be holding my breath.

That's one of the better ideas for your self interest you've had lately.

P.S. I kinda resent you characterizing my relationship as a sexual one - homo or otherwise. Yeah, that was an element - but there's one helluva lot more to an intimate relationship than sex - despite the convenient stereotypical broad brush portrayal.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=902
Bob K destroys the torrey hawks

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/20 19:49:50 UTC

This statement was posted by an anonymous person who didn't want their lies to tarnish their real identities.

Everyone knows that I founded the Torrey Hawks to give hang gliding a voice and some representation at Torrey. The club has over 200 members, and we've only had a handful leave us since our founding in 2007. Of course we've been the target of many people because we've stood up for something. Whenever you stand up for something you'll draw the wrath of those who stand against you.

Yeah, funny how these things always seem to work out that way.

The interesting thing is that the only people willing to badmouth the Hawks are anonymous cowards who won't put their own names on the line. And the reason they won't put their own names on the line is because they can't stand behind what they say.

And/or maybe they're afraid of being outed on some issue or other.

In a sense, I take pride in the fact that only anonymous cowards will post things like that.

And I take pride in the fact that only anonymous cowards will go running to Bob to protect them from the Big Bad Sexual Predator.

By the way, Nobody, you've simply posted what someone else has written. Have you researched any of the facts?

I have, to some extent.

Do you know what really happened at the HGAA? Most importantly, do you have the guts to make a statement of your own about what you've posted?

Did you read MY take?

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

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=901
Life 4 Rent

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/20 20:20:35 UTC

In defense of Al, I've been practically begging people to post on this forum to keep it alive.

1. How very odd. Seemed like you were always begging me NOT to post.

2. Exactly when did you start begging people to post? Maybe about the time you booted me down to The Basement to begin your "experiment" to see if people would post more without me doing my duty to speak out when I saw things not being done correctly? Or did you wait until after you banned me altogether?

So I thank him for taking the time to put up anything. Thanks Al!!

Yeah - ANYTHING!! Now Al feels safe to post a music video without fear of being shredded by Tad!

On the other hand, it looks like we're finally seeing a little more active posting, and so maybe we can start being more careful about making sure that stuff goes in the right places.

Yeah, lotsa activity on SouthWest Texas - from which Tad was banned last summer (2011/07/27). Gonna count that to bolster your figures?

Either way, I'm glad to see both of you posting at all. If we really want a national hang gliding association, we're going to have to do what we can to continue our growth. So thanks to you both!!

Yeah!!! Post anything! Does anyone have a cat he wants to talk about?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=906
BobK's new avatar

Sam Kellner - 2011/12/21 00:35:52 UTC

Bob,

that new avatar is cool .. Looks great

Yep, really big things starting to happen.

(Zack, can you order us some more smilies so I can more accurately represent Sam's posts? Better get the economy size.)
---
Edit - 2013/11/18 17:00:00 UTC

Never mind. I long ago figured out that smilies from other sites are just images that can be embedded here.

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

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/20 16:45:55 UTC

Tad,

I asserted that you don't have problems with people on the KiteStrings forum because you've banned anyone who would object. You've replied (above):

TadEareckson wrote:

The only bannings that can be documented at either of these places have been Nobody and me.

Now I have no way of knowing who you've actually banned from KiteStrings. But I do know what's been said in our past discussions on this forum:

On May 9th, 2011, bobk wrote:

You know I'm not very fond of people being banned.

On May 9th, 2011, TadEareckson wrote:

As I've said before...

With what I'm trying to do at Kite Strings I'm EXTREMELY fond of seeing people banned. You need people with brains at the top to tell the dregs that tend to do most of the flying what they can and can't do - just like in REAL aviation.

As I said, I don't know how many people you've actually banned with the ban button, but I doubt that very many people on your "hate list" would even bother to register at Kite Strings under those conditions. Why would they increase your site's legitimacy by registering if the only thing to be gained was your satisfaction (and revenge) by banning them? So I would say that you've effectively banned all of your serious critics already.

Also, it's interesting to see (in retrospect) the contempt that you hold for "the dregs that tend to do most of the flying" in our sport. Those are the people we should be reaching out to so they can become better and safer pilots in a better and more responsive national organization. But your model is that the people with "brains at the top" need to tell everyone else (the "dregs") what they can and can't do. I believe that viewpoint is much more consistent with USHPA than it is with the US Hawks. Maybe you'd be better off trying to gain control of that existing "top-down" organization than trying to invert the intentionally "bottom-up" structure of the US Hawks. Please consider that. Thanks.

I asserted that you don't have problems with people on the KiteStrings forum because you've banned anyone who would object.

1. Looks like your continued presence here really shot that assertion to hell.

2. I mostly don't have problems with people here because most of the people participating here are interested in doing the math, science, and logic to make things better and safer for themselves in particular and hang gliding in general and we all end up with the same numbers when we put our calculators down.

3. Professional pilots with long track records who all tend to have a similar opinions and their idiot followers and harmonizers who couldn't figure out which end of a calculator was supposed to go up even if the only number on the display were a two are not encouraged to post - but you'll notice that Sam (one of TWO people here who've banned me with no justification from forums they control) remains on the list anyway.

As I said, I don't know how many people you've actually banned with the ban button...

You got a couple of ways of knowing how many people I've actually banned from Kite Strings.

1. I've told you that I've only banned spammers and demonstrated that my word actually means something. (Real bummer that you're never gonna know what that feels like.)

2. If I had banned somebody he'd have probably said something about it somewhere and that would deservedly destroy my credibility when it came to light.

...but I doubt that very many people on your "hate list" would even bother to register at Kite Strings under those conditions.

1. Good. They've crudded up way too much of the internet as it is.
2. One out of nine of the current registered members of Kite Strings is on my hate list.

Why would they increase your site's legitimacy by registering if the only thing to be gained was your satisfaction (and revenge) by banning them?

1. My site's legitimacy - in stark contrast to yours - is ROCK SOLID.

2. Who on my rather extensive hate list do you think could possibly ADD legitimacy to it by participating?

3. If a biology department adds a couple of intelligent design theorists to its faculty does that increase the university's legitimacy? (Please answer yes.)

So I would say that you've effectively banned all of your serious critics already.

You're still here, Bob. That's a helluva lot better than you can say with respect to me.

Also, it's interesting to see (in retrospect) the contempt that you hold for "the dregs that tend to do most of the flying" in our sport. Those are the people we should be reaching out to so they can become better and safer pilots in a better and more responsive national organization.

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

Steve Davy - 2011/08/31 10:11:32 UTC

Zack figured it out. Well done Zack! Enjoy your vacation.

Kinsley Sykes - 2011/08/31 11:35:36 UTC

Well actually he didn't. But if you don't want to listen to the folks that actually know what they are talking about, go ahead.
Feel free to go the the tow park that Tad runs...

Bullshit. We don't wanna be reaching out to a bunch of stupid clones and having them to build Rooney foundations and statues and have a national organization responsive to them. We wanna be reaching out to the best of the best and work our way down as necessary only after we've got things under some kind of sane level of control.

But your model is that the people with "brains at the top" need to tell everyone else (the "dregs") what they can and can't do.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way it works for people who wanna land jets on carrier decks. I'm totally cool with that model.

I believe that viewpoint is much more consistent with USHPA than it is with the US Hawks.

Nah. USHPA and US Hawks are both geared to put the dregs in control of everything and go after anyone with a functional brain with a vengeance.

Maybe you'd be better off trying to gain control of that existing "top-down" organization than trying to invert the intentionally "bottom-up" structure of the US Hawks.

Yeah, you've got an intentionally "bottom-up" structure alright - no question about that WHATSOEVER. Nobody with a triple digit IQ need apply.

Please consider that.

Well, it's not like I really ever had a choice, is it Bob?

Thanks.

Don't mention it.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=821
Fatal hang gliding accident

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/13 16:32:13 UTC

If I'm batting .501 I'm probably a force for the positive and others should be able to take up the slack and neutralize me where I'm wrong.

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/13 18:26:25 UTC

Tad, at last check, you've got 344 posts (mostly long posts) on this forum.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=901
Life 4 Rent

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/20 20:20:35 UTC

In defense of Al, I've been practically begging people to post on this forum to keep it alive.

You're welcome.

If you're batting .501, could you please let us know which of the 171.656 posts we should be neutralizing and/or ignoring?

No need. I'm NOT batting .501 - I'm batting a thousand. So don't neutralize and/or ignore ANY of them. But neutralize and/or ignore as many of Sam's, Terry's, and Peter's as possible.

Of course, there's another problem, and that is that it's impossible for others to "take up the slack and neutralize" you on any topic (without banning you) because you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

1. Guess we solved that little problem, didn't we?

2. So how come you're never the least bit concerned when Sam, Terry, Pilgrim, Rick, and Peter are DEAD WRONG about stuff?

In another discussion you've refused to admit that lifting and tugging a glider before launch in difficult conditions presents any safety risk at all. Anyone who's wrestled a glider under difficult conditions knows that's false.

I guess I'll hafta take your word on that one 'cause I've never wrestled a glider under difficult conditions. I always get assistance...

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/19 21:01:28 UTC

I've personally seen gliders get flipped on launch flinging their pilots like rag dolls through the air and slamming them onto the ground. I was in the air over Torrey when I saw that happen to a friend of mine. He was in the hospital for some time with various broken parts (including his pelvis as I recall). In fact, I was flipped myself on top of Kagel when I was a Hang 2. Fortunately, only my pride was bruised, but I know first-hand how quickly a glider can go from just slightly out of control to a life-threatening disaster.

...so I don't end up upside down or in the hospital with various broken parts like you and your idiot friends.

And yet you cling to it.

No no. You've totally convinced me. If you're stupid enough to get on launch with inadequate crew in conditions in which a glider can quickly go from just slightly out of control to a life-threatening disaster it really doesn't matter that much whether or not you're hooked in. Either way there's a strong possibility of an immediate benefit to the gene pool.

Have you EVER ONCE under ANY circumstances performed a lift and tug check JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=881
Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/13 20:48:43 UTC

Free wrote:

Davis Straub, the journalist, is invited to speak here, also.
You will probably never be censored here, Davis.

Correct. I welcome Davis, and Jack, and Brad Hall, and Mark Forbes, and Bill Helliwell, and everyone else (including Tad) to this forum. But we do have to retain some ability to keep topics on track and make some kind of progress if we really want to build a new national hang gliding organization.

I don't mind a topic like this with its obvious political overtones (although I think it might be better in the "Free Speech Zone") as long as it doesn't start to take over the forum and drive everyone away. We have to realize that there are people on the political right and left who make good contributions to the sport of hang gliding. I want them all to feel welcome here.

Oops. Looks like we're down to Davis, Jack, Brad Hall, Mark Forbes, Bill Helliwell, and everyone else (EXCLUDING Tad) now. Liars, con artists, and serial killers - fine. But we hafta draw the line SOMEWHERE, ferchrisake! After all, this forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit.

(Guess you'll be waiving the expression of remorse requirement for the motherfuckers on the above list 'cause we want them all to feel welcome here?)