The Bob Show

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=992
Continuing Saga of Weak Link and Release Mechanism Failures

Warren Narron - 2012/03/06 02:26:04 UTC

Tad, used to post about as nice as anyone and nicer than some. Remember?

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/03/06 03:33:13 UTC

That must have been long before I knew him.

You don't know me, Bob. You're a pathological liar and you don't even know yourself. You've got a real loose grip on reality.

When I started the US Hawks, I made a point of specifically seeking out and finding people who'd been mistreated by USHPA or Davis or Jack because I wanted the US Hawks to be a more inclusive organization.

1. Too bad you didn't make a point of specifically both seeking out AND finding people who knew what the fuck they were doing and talking about.

2. So if you were specifically seeking out and finding people who'd been mistreated by USHPA or Davis or Jack because you wanted the US Hawks to be a more inclusive organization, how come you're so deeply in bed with a piece of shit like Sam who gets along just great with USHPA AND Davis AND Jack? (I kick myself about three times a day for being stupid enough to give that motherfucker the benefit of the doubt on your request - and for blinding myself to the reality that anyone who'd make such a request on behalf of a piece of shit like that was himself a piece of shit.)

I tried to help Tad lose some of his anger and aggression.

Whoa, DUDE! And you somehow managed to accomplish the PRECISE OPPOSITE! What do you think went amiss in that little exercise in social engineering? Anything you'd do slightly differently next time?

I was patient with him for the better part of a year.

And still I was making no progress whatsoever in becoming a clone of you. Maybe you just weren't patient enough for long enough.

I spent lots of time talking to him on the phone - often until the battery on my cell phone ran out.

And here I was thinking you had some ghost of an interest in understanding the history, issues, and physics of the sport so you could help me do some of the things that people like Zack, Larry, Mike, Antoine, and Steve are over here to help get some problems fixed.

I believe that most of the people kicked around by USHPA, Jack, and Davis probably didn't deserve it. But I've begun thinking that Tad may be the exception.

1. Oh. So you've begun THINKING. Must've been quite a shock to your system.
2. Upon what are you basing this alleged thinking? Can you cite a few examples of the transgressions I committed?
3. Here's what a few people who were actually watching and/or engaged in the discussions THINK about that issue...

---

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14931
Tad's release (even more)

Freedomspyder - 2009/02/14 17:43:30 UTC

Tad,
I've found your posts on both hook-in checks and releases very interesting and well thought out.
Best of luck dealing with the Oz Report forum cult and its leader.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=883
What will keep the US Hawks from becoming another USHPA or HGAA?

Warren Narron - 2012/03/16 16:28:48 UTC

Tad wasn't always so hostile and aggressive. Early on in his quest to change dangerous/dogmatic procedures and improve the chance of safety to his fellow pilots, I was awed at how much crap he actually took... course he finally snapped and let the pent up anger fly and I can't really blame him. Willful ignorance pisses me off too.

Zack C - 2010/11/23 05:23:34 UTC

In September of 2010, hang gliding safety activist Tad Eareckson entered a discussion on the Houston Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association's discussion group that would result in his being banned from the group within two months. But despite the controversy over Tad's 'arrogance' and 'condescending tone,' I was impressed by his knowledge, logic, and respect for science, which included a great deal of his own research and experimentation. My attempts to carry out a rational discussion with him were continually sabotaged and eventually aborted by other group members, many with little interest in or comprehension of the discussion.

Larry West - 2009/09/02 04:01:46 UTC

Sorry to see ya go, but I can imagine everyone has a limit to what they are willing to put up with. You put up with a lot and I've learned much from your writing. Thank you.

Antoine Saraf - 2012/02/16 08:14:22 UTC

Tad, I clearly understand your position, resentment, hate and your urge to use law to force better practices...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=14312
Tow Park accidents

Adi Branch - 2009/11/10 20:50:50 UTC

For what it's worth, I think Tad spoke a lot of sense.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=14312
Tow Park accidents

Jason Rogers - 2009/11/10 13:21:31 UTC

Well I think he's probably right that there is a problem. I don't know if what he proposes is the right solution, but it's better than mine.

I looked at the stats, I looked at the caliber of pilots who were dying in tow accidents (far better than mine). I concluded towing is simply far too dangerous and gave it up.

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.

---

With all the kindness I extended to him...

1. Oh! So that was KINDNESS! Next time try fucking somebody over in the most contemptible ways you can imagine and see if you have any better luck.

2. I'm not the least bit interested in your kindness. I'm more into things that matter in this sport - fairness, honesty, and competence. And you totally flunk in all those categories - and many more on top of them.

...he still went ballistic the moment we disagreed.

I'll go ballistic the moment I encounter ANY asshole who's trying to establish or support procedures which get people killed.

He turned on me as if I were his mortal enemy...

1. As IF?
2. I delayed WAY too long.

...just because I didn't think lifting a glider in strong winds was the most sensible way to check your hook-in status.

1. Yeah Bob. Thank you so very much for putting in print that your position was based solely on what you DIDN'T THINK.

2. And here I was believing that you were taking your idiot position based upon...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=822
US Hawks Hook-In Verification Poll

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/13 00:58:28 UTC

Look, I'm not just relying on my opinion here. I've asked some of the experts and they have advised me that performing a "lift-and-tug" in difficult conditions can introduce significant risk to the pilot's safety.

...the opinions of some unidentified EXPERTS on the dangers of hook-in checks in difficult conditions who - strangely - didn't provide any actual examples of incidents to support these alleged opinions.

3. You are so enormously and transparently full of shit, Bob. You're nowhere near smart enough to make a halfway successful liar.

4. And anyway... I don't give a rat's ass whatever any of you actual and alleged fucking morons does or doesn't "THINK" in the face of decades of experience, OVERWHELMING data to the contrary, and ten year old kid common sense.

It may be that he's still smarting from being ignored for so long (as you mentioned)...

I wasn't getting ignored, Bob. I was getting my wire cut by cowardly motherfuckers such as yourself 'cause I was getting listened to and winning battles.

...but if most of a year of nice treatment didn't help reverse it ... it may not be reversible.

Get fucked.

But the point of my post was that we can (and should) include Tad's good work in this forum.

Too bad you you had no interest whatsoever in focusing on that when you had the chance.

I encourage everyone to do so.

EVERYONE? Who the hell is everyone? Your "organization" has barely got a detectable pulse - primarily 'cause it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offer anyone that they can't get somewhere else - and the graph is on a long shallow slide to the lower right.

And I'd like to think that I played a significant role in sending it on that trajectory.

And I think there's a lot of pretty solid evidence that I did.

And if any opportunity for me to steepen that slope presents itself - trust me dude - I'm gonna take it.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/03/28 21:00:19 UTC

Hi Tad,

I ran my word counting program on my earlier post and your response. Mine was 405 words and yours was 3075 words (including any quotes we used). There's nothing wrong with writing a lot, and I appreciate that you took the time to answer each point with great care. But even so, if I respond with the same level of thoroughness, then we're have an exponential growth of text.

Looks like The Bob Show is no longer in any danger of having any issues with exponential growth of anything, Bob.

Of course the problem that it DOES have is that so rarely does anyone post anything - let alone anything of actual substance - that it's hardly worth checking the forum more than once every week or two.

P.S. One of many things you never have been nor ever will be able to fathom...

When people respond honestly and competently and with thoroughness to each other's points you don't get exponential growth of text. The precise opposite happens. They reach resolutions, settle issues, and move on to getting other issues addressed and fixed.

Case in point...

None of the Kite Strings participants is having any problems understanding what weak links are, what their ratings should be, and how to configure them.

You wanna get massive wastes of bandwidth keep pulling the kind of crap at which you really excel. It won't happen on your site - 'cause you've pretty much killed it already - but it will forever clog the sites of all the more successful scumbags out there.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1019
USHPA's New Secret Web Site?

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/05/02 03:17:17 UTC

My goal is to preserve what people write so it can be reviewed objectively. Please contrast that with other sites where posters can rewrite their history or where moderators take considerable liberty with what people have posted.

How 'bout sites where moderators who claim to be all about freedom of speech take considerable liberty with people who post stuff the moderators don't want them to say?

You can trust what you read on US Hawks because we don't modify it after the fact.

Yeah. As long as it's original, unmodified crap you can trust it.

I hope that's something you can respect.

Not a snowball's chance in hell - ever.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1019
USHPA's New Secret Web Site?

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/05/04 19:46:26 UTC

To be honest (a little painfully honest)...

Yeah Bob, I have no trouble at all believing that honesty is something you find extraordinarily painful.

...I've been disappointed with the participation in the US Hawks.

Bummer, dude. And here I was thinking that after you first conducted your little experiment by locking Tad down in The Basement to boost participation of all of the Tad hating hordes and then locked him out altogether to make The Bob Show a safe place for people of varying ages to visit your bandwidth would've been totally overwhelmed.

I know that both Jack and Davis have manipulated posts on their forums and have outright banned opposing viewpoints and participants.

The FIENDS!!! That's totally despicable.

I am very disappointed that so many people continue happily along on those forums without challenging that behavior or coming to participate in the US Hawks.

You mean the way you did when I was getting fucked over by your old buddy Jack and the rest of the scum he cultivates?

It's a microcosm of what's happening in our society in general (as Warren has correctly pointed out), and it often leaves me feeling pretty hopeless about continuing.

Damn it's nice to win one once in a while.

[bobk]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1019
USHPA's New Secret Web Site?

Bob Kuczewski - 2012/05/02 03:17:17 UTC

My goal is to preserve what people write so it can be reviewed objectively. Please contrast that with other sites where posters can rewrite their history or where moderators take considerable liberty with what people have posted.

How 'bout sites where moderators who claim to be all about freedom of speech take considerable liberty with people who post stuff the moderators don't want them to say?

Tad, you were banned not because of anything you said on the forum, but because you indicated to me that you didn't think you did anything wrong by having a homosexual relationship with a 12 year old boy who was entrusted to you through the scouting program.

If you still don't see a problem with that, then maybe that's what you should be arguing against. Want to give it a try?

[Tad Eareckson]

01. No. I DON'T. It's an absolute waste of time to try to have rational discussions with lying, scheming, hypocritical, religious wack jobs.

02. I want you to mind your own goddam business and stay the hell out of other people's personal lives - especially mine.

03. You and I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING further to discuss on this issue, publicly or privately, EVER.

04. DO NOT *EVER* BRING IT UP HERE AGAIN. You used it to try to blackmail me on your forum and sabotage my efforts. And you're trying to sabotage what I'm doing here and I'm not going to waste any more time with you. If you want to respond to any of the issues from this post you do it on your own forum.

05. Likewise you and I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING further to discuss on hook-in check or towing issues, publicly or privately, EVER - for the same reason.

06. I have absolutely no need whatsoever for you to advise me on what I should or shouldn't be arguing against.

07. This is primarily a HANG GLIDING forum and its purpose is to discuss HANG GLIDING issues.

Zack C - 2010/11/23 05:23:34 UTC

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.

08. You don't even REMOTELY qualify to be here - and never will.

09. This forum has never pretended to be a free speech zone. You are still here only because I tolerate you being here - not because you have the slightest interest in furthering any of the stated goals.

10. It wasn't the case that I WAS banned - motherfucker. YOU banned me. With very little in the way of popular support and a fair amount of bitter opposition.

11. YOU banned me 'cause I wouldn't play nice with the Sam caliber crud you foolishly believed you could organize into something viable and it was too much work for you to keep sabotaging me.

12. Interesting how obsessed you are about who was sleeping with whom over a quarter century ago while you haven't made a single comment on one of your do-a-hang-check-and-launch-whenever-the-hell-you-feel-like-it kindred spirits dropping a 27-year-old a thousand feet and swallowing some of the evidence upon landing seven and a half days ago. (Too bad she wasn't wired with one of your electronic hook-in alarms or didn't have one of Sam's mirrors on the wing - isn't it?)

13. You're history, Bob. Stay the hell out of hang gliding and go some place where cheap con artists like you are valued. The American Family Association would love to have you as director of their queer bashing division - which constitutes about ninety percent of the organization. You'd be in heaven.

14. And take Davis, Jack, Rooney, and Sam with you.

15. I'm busy right now. Get fucked.

[bobk]

It's an absolute waste of time to try to have rational discussions with lying, scheming, hypocritical, religious wack jobs.

I have not lied, schemed, or been hypocritical. I am also neither particularly religious nor a "wack job". So all of your name calling proves that you're the one who is incapable of rational discussions without resorting to profanity and other divisive and diversionary tactics.

With regard to my post, I was contacted by a member of the US Hawks forum who had concerns about your presence there given your past history as a child molester. I took the time to contact you directly about it rather than rely on hear-say comments.

You personally told me that you didn't see any problem with you (as a 30 something year old?) adult having had a homosexual relationship with a 12 year old boy ... other than the societal ramifications which you felt were unjust.

That told me 2 things:

• First, that you had no remorse and might repeat that same molestation behavior ... if you didn't think you'd get caught.
• Second, that you have the ability to rationalize anything to justify your actions and refuse to admit any guilt or wrongdoing ... even when it is obvious.

It was those two elements that made it clear to me that you were a danger to both the sport and to people (like your molestation victim) who believe what you say. I offer that as a warning to anyone who is following what you say on this forum without extreme scrutiny.

Now I didn't need to come to your forum to expose all of this, but when you imply that freedom of speech on the US Hawks is in jeopardy:

"How 'bout sites where moderators who claim to be all about freedom of speech take considerable liberty with people who post stuff the moderators don't want them to say?"

That's when I have to let the truth be known.

Please let me know if you challenge any of the facts presented in this post.

[bobk]

Tad,

I won't waste my time on most of your other points, but this one deserves some attention:

Zack C - 2010/11/23 05:23:34 UTC

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 don't even REMOTELY qualify to be here - and never will.

I have a 4 year degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering. I've held a Private Pilot's licence (Single Engine Land and Sea) since the late 70's. I hold an advanced rating in hang gliding and paragliding. I've carried on numerous lengthy conversations with you where I've tried to find the truth through science, facts, reason, and logic without resorting to name calling, profanity, or false allegations.

[Tad Eareckson]

I won't waste my time on most of your other points...

Excellent idea.

I have a 4 year degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering.

Which is really only much good if you've either put a wing in the air or at least improved upon the performance of something that someone else has put in the air.

So... Have you either put a wing in the air or at least improved upon the performance of something that someone else has put in the air?

Have you ever put ANYTHING in the air - on hang or para glider - which as made life possible or the least bit better for ANYONE?

I've held a Private Pilot's licence (Single Engine Land and Sea) since the late 70's.

Yeah? So?

I hold an advanced rating in hang gliding and paragliding.

Yeah? So?

Has anybody modified his flying or procedures for the better because of anything you've done or written?

I've carried on numerous lengthy conversations with you where I've tried to find the truth through science, facts, reason, and logic...

For what purpose? I'm the one who's done his homework in the issues in which this sport needs major work and debunked the kind of crap that the establishment uses to flood the wires, you haven't added anything to MY understanding, and whenever I try to get any procedures in place you declare some shitheaded halfwit like Sam to be my equal and allow his vote to neutralize mine.

... without resorting to name calling, profanity, or false allegations.

Save it. I know how you operate, I can go through the written record and see the patterns of what you're doing. I'm pretty sure I understand what you're doing and why better than you do.

So what are your credentials?

I dunno. Why don't you ask Zack, Steve, Antoine, Mike, Larry, Warren, Jason Rogers, Helen, Bill Cummings, Gregg Ludwig, John Moody, Rich Cizauskas, Adi Branch, Jesse Benson, Steve Kinsley, Brian Vant-Hull, or any of the Jack Show douchebags who are always lined up and screaming for Antoine to provide them with copies of my designs whenever he posts photos and videos of them?

And maybe Lenami's family and their attorneys will give me a plug before this is over with.

[Tad Eareckson]

Sorry Bob, I didn't catch that you had made two posts nine minutes and twenty-six seconds apart and missed the first until catching up on some housekeeping this morning.

1. I've tolerated you calling me a child molester and posting all manner of other ugly, bigoted lies and distortions on this forum more times than I care to go back and count.

2. I've addressed everything you've said on the issue at least half a dozen times a copy.

3. But whenever I make a point or ask you a question which undermines what you're saying you do EXACTLY what Rooney does - totally ignore it and/or walk out of the conversation then come back later with EXACTLY the same rot as before.

4. In my previous post, regarding this issue, I told you:

DO NOT *EVER* BRING IT UP HERE AGAIN.

(And I had the caps lock key on to make it really hard to miss.)

5. I meant what I said. You're gone - permanently.

Sumpin' else...

In some areas much better than others, I'm REAL GOOD in matters of threat assessment.

And whenever one finds someone as obsessed and rabid as you are about the kind of relationship I had, it's an absolute no brainer that he's dealing with a closet case - and often a self hating one.