The Bob Show

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1658
Criminal Harassment on OZ Forum - Victim Banned

Bill Cummings - 2015/01/08 01:06:44 UTC

Some people I've found are extremely prone to snap judgment. I once sat on a jury and my wife was present for the prosecutions opening and the asking of questions to be answered by the prosecution's witnesses.
This took up all of the first day. At home that evening my wife was trying to clue me into how guilty the plaintiff was because we, the jury, didn’t get to come into the courtroom until they took the handcuffs and ankle shackles off. Also why would they arrest the guy if he wasn't guilty?

I said, "You're kidding me right?"

She was serious and said, “You can tell he's guilty just by looking at him!"

The defense had yet to call any of their witnesses.

Obviously some people should be weeded out by Voir Dire.

My mother-in-law once told me about another trial where, "The guy is guilty! They have DNA evidence that he raped the woman."

I was unable to convince her that DNA isn't the end all of evidence since it could be manipulated, planted, tainted, misread or lied about.
Anyway I know two people that should never sit in judgment of anyone.

But you're perfectly OK with Bob. If he hadn't stepped in to make The Bob Show a safe place for people of varying ages to visit what would've almost certainly happened to your kids and grandkids - along with all the other young readers there - at the hands of T** at K*** S****** is just too horrible to think about.

On the rape trial that I was one of the jurors we came to the decision that all of the elements that needed to be satisfied for each of the two charges to be applied could not be met. A rape may have occurred but the only thing that had been proven to all of us on the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, was that the police (that were not charged with anything) were guilty of mishandling their duties and shoddy work product.

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/08 08:15:01 UTC

We will need to come up with a way to find suitable volunteers for cases as they arise.

"Suitable", of course, meaning whatever the fuck Bob feels like considering suitable.

I'm thinking that we could have a topic where people volunteering for mediation duty can sign up.

Mediation of what? I thought that one big difference between The Bob Show and other organizations was that The Bob Show really does honor the free speech of its members as long as that free speech included an explicit statement of a wish to work cooperatively and compromise with other Bob Show members.

Then people who have a dispute can look through the list to see if they find anyone that they both respect enough to help them out.

And if they can't it's because they're wrong anyway. Tough shit.

They could carry out the discussions privately or open a topic for the case.

What if one of the individuals were a person of a varying age? How would you be able to ensure his safety?

It might work in some cases, but it might be a disaster in others.

So? Your whole bullshit "association" is a disaster.

As with everything on the US Hawks, we can wade into it slowly...

Yeah, Bob's a real expert on wading into things slowly - and, when things aren't going the way he wants, quickly.

...with some test cases to see what works and what doesn't.

And...

- "works" will be defined as having an outcome on board with what Bob wants

- we couldn't possibly look how other organizations have been run over the course of recorded history and use what's worked as models - we hafta invent everything from scratch

But as Wingspan mentioned, this is a nice thing for a national hang gliding association to provide to its members.

So are clearly stated rules applied to and for everyone - not just made up by Bob as we go along and used only against individuals he feels like undermining.

So who's interested in experimenting with this idea?

Yeah Bob, aren't you just the one for experimentation.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1690
US Hawks Board of Directors Testing in 2015

Scott C. Wise - 2015/01/08 16:27:22 UTC

Bob,

I would like to step up and volunteer.

Hafta get in line, Scott. I got in well ahead of you.

As you know, I have experience with the once budding (now dead) HGAA. In the current situation we don't have SG or DB...

Who the fuck is "DB"?

...type characters around to undermine the process of creating a solid membership based/focused hang gliding organization.

Ditto for Tad Eareckson and Steve Davy type characters. But Bob's totally cool with Sam Kellner, Charlie Schneider, Peter Birren type characters.

And, Bob, I think you have a very solid idea of, at least, what Should NOT and Can NOT be allowed in such an organization.

Yeah...

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 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.

Right.

Also- one of my observations with the fetal HGAA was that people were not talking to people, they were typing into their computers and reading from their computers.

What the fuck does it matter? Jack was in full control from Day One and engineered its failure.

One of my last suggestions was that an internet based video conferencing set-up be created where real time "meetings" can take place. Meetings where you can actually look at everyone in attendance - and they can all look back at you.

And that will accomplish WHAT? Making calls on issues based upon what advocates and opponents look like?

I would also encourage a very real In-Person meeting to take place not too long after significant organizational efforts begin. Ideally, I would like such a meeting to occur sooner rather than later.

See above.

But BOD members may end up being located here and there across the country. That creates travel expenses and scheduling challenges. Myself as an example: I live on the east coast and have a pretty limited budget. But there are probably lots of things that can be accomplished by way of the internet (on this site) before such a meeting is planned.

Name some things that CAN'T be accomplished on the internet in which there's a clear digital record of exactly what's been said and shown to everybody - at least for those who go to the trouble of archiving.

Enough for now.

Probably too much. Keep enjoying your shit sandwich.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1690
US Hawks Board of Directors Testing in 2015

Brian McMahon - 2015/01/08 18:45:45 UTC

HGAA failed because pilots got into multipost arguments over silly crap like what a voting majority is. At the time there was a large number of HG pilots that were interested in a new HG org. But the public arguments by the 'leadership' over trivial issues just soured the whole idea.

Rubbish.

If you're going to create a national organization, you need to do it in a way where comments can be received, like an RFC, for a committee to consider, but no public debating. The forums are fine for public comments and opinions, but the committee is where the actual debate and decisions need to take place. The voting record for the committee ought to be made public. And maybe the minutes or even a recording should be public. It would also be nice if the meetings were held in a way that the pilots could listen in, even if they can't say anything.

I think that the USHPA way of getting things done is a good model to start from.

Yeah, we could get those little red rubber FOCUSED PILOT wristbands into circulation in a fraction of the time.

The problems I see are their apparent paranoia:

There are secret meetings
As far as the secret meetings and such, I don't know what to make of those. In the upper echelon, there are discussions that they do not want to be public. This is the kind of thing that generates suspicion, but admittedly the vast majority of pilots could care less. The pilots or directors that might care about them could be why the meetings are secret.

Voting records are not kept
The committees should keep voting records and for any votes where all of the directors participate there should be a record. There isn't a good excuse for not recording this information, but there are a lot of bad ones; laziness being the most obvious. Without a voting record, when elections are held, the RD's are like, "Well I don't remember that particular vote..." if they get asked about something. Davis whitewashes this as a non-issue with the USHPA, but he's been involved for a long time and is used to how things work there.

They don't keep a database of accident reports
Nobody wants to prevent or stifle accidents from being reported...

Bull fucking shit.

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

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/10/19 02:22:47 UTC

I might vote for Sam if he ever wants to run the US Hawks.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1081
Platform towing /risk mitigation / accident

Sam Kellner - 2012/07/03 02:25:58 UTC

No, you don't get an accident report.

There are THOUSANDS of people in hang gliding - damn near everyone in positions of control who want "accident" reports suppressed to the maximum extent possible. Bob and Sam are prime examples.

...but safety trending is something that should not be ignored. If trending over ten years reveals that asymmetrical collapses under 300' AGL are resulting in hospitalization or death 95% of the time, then that's a trend all PG pilots should know about!

Yeah, right. What's trending over decades of hang checks, standard aerotow weak links, releases within easy reach, pro toad bridles, standup spot landings been revealing and what's been the response?

The answer to fear of reporting is that if you don't report an accident and are reported by someone else that finds out about it, you could be ejected from the organization.

Bullshit. The guy who reports on it is gonna be the one who gets ejected.

The leaders don't want to be liable for anything, especially where a safety related incident results in a death. I don't blame them...

Big surprise.

...but I don't really know if there really is or should be a concern.

Especially not when the leaders are all criminally negligent motherfuckers who deserve to be sued out of existence and thrown in prison.

You would think that all of the waivers would be enough. I know the insurance issue is a big reason, but I don't understand how exactly. It is as if records are not kept specifically so that such records could not be used.

I keep records over here - and I so hope they'll be used to take people out of circulation permanently.

The liability insurance rates should be higher as a direct result of not having a record keeping database in this day and age, rather than the opposite.

Funny how that works - ain't it?

One other problem I would mention is that there probably should be limits on terms. An RD that that has been an RD in the USHPA for ten years is probably four years too long. You get a cadre of RDs that have been in for over ten years, and you've got an old boys network, which is bound to lead to favoritism or worse.

Worse.

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/09 20:17:49 UTC

All great points!!!

'Specially the ones on accident reporting!!! Right, Bob?

We should be able to do better on all counts.

Yeah, when you're starting from as low a point as you've gotten things it should be pretty easy to do better.

HGAA failed because pilots got into multipost arguments over silly crap like what a voting majority is...

We may end up disagreeing on this one.

I started out disagreeing on that one - in no uncertain terms.

If Jack (sg) had wanted the HGAA to succeed, he'd have been promoting it on the biggest megaphone in the sport: hanggliding.org. He could have put a banner on the top of every page urging pilots to join the HGAA. Why didn't he do that?

The answer is that Jack enjoys controlling that big megaphone all by himself.

Who besides you is controlling the Bob Show megaphone?

He originally liked the idea of a competitor to USHPA, and he jumped in to support it. But somewhere along the line he realized it would be a competitor to himself as well ... and it would be democratically controlled. That's why he gained control ... to kill it. He claimed that he had to kick out Wingspan and myself to "grow" the organization.

Now where have I heard something like that...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=767
Is This a Joke? We Know What We're Doing?

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/09/13 05:25:24 UTC

This has been an experiment to see what free speech accomplishes in the hang gliding world. The results will be whatever you make of them. If this ends up as a dead site, then I may have to conclude that Jack and Davis were right to have banned you. You can make them right or wrong by your own antagonism of our other members.

...before - motherfucker?

How much did he grow it after that "coup"?

How much did The Bob Show grow in the aftermath...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=805
Aerotowing Guidelines

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/09 22:30:38 UTC

Hi Tad and Bill,

As I mentioned in the other topic, I've decided to "do the experiment" to determine if Tad's postings are hurting or helping the US Hawks. To make that determination, I've restricting Tad to the "Free Speech Zone". So if you'd like to continue the conversation there, please feel free to do so and post the name of that topic here (along with a link) so people can continue to follow the conversation.

My restriction of Tad to the Free Speech Zone isn't intended as a judgement of his ideas, but as a response to his assertion that his postings are helping to grow the US Hawks. I hope everyone who's enjoyed corresponding with Tad will continue to do so in the Free Speech Zone.

Thanks, and I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

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

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1186
D. Straub's Politics=Gun Grabbing, Constitution/Baby Killing

Bob Kuczewski - 2013/02/19 04:39:45 UTC

Don't worry ... your secret is safe here on the US Hawks ... after all, we've only got about 5 active participants.

...of your little "experiment" on me?

You're fuckin' unreal, Bob. Let's hear a few charges against Jack and Davis that you don't mirror at the drop of a hat.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1690
US Hawks Board of Directors Testing in 2015

Brian McMahon - 2015/01/10 00:08:48 UTC

I don't know the full inside story between you and Jack, or maybe I just don't remember the details and/or my mind has suppressed the details. What I do distinctly remember is a massive flame war that started with an argument over voting. I thought it was about what a majority or quorum majority was or something along those lines. I had been away from the HGAA website for a few weeks on vacation, then came back to discover a flame war. This escalated to the point that there were wall of text posts, it got so bad that I gave up trying to understand what was going on. I basically stopped going to the site and I don't know what happened on the HGAA site after that time. I also joined the Torrey Hawks and started showing up the meetings at that time, even though I wasn't an H4 yet.

Anyway, my only point about this is that no matter what a pilot's opinion is on a given US Hawks subject, the decision should be a committee vote or membership vote.

Right. The way it's always been.

If you don't like the outcome, too bad, but don't allow the kind of chaos that erupted on the HGAA forum to become the focus or all is lost; again. There are people watching this forum, maybe even as I write this, that expect failure, maybe even hope for failure.

It failed as soon as it started - as it should have / deserved to.

US Hawks won't get built by the sheer force of Bob's will or any other single person.

Everything over there of any significance has been built - and destroyed - by the sheer force of Bob's will. Not one single issue has ever been voted on by anybody but Landslide Bob.

Equally, a few detractors will not prevent the US Hawks from succeeding.

We're doing what can.

What will prevent the US Hawks from going anywhere is a repeat of what happened on the HGAA forum.

No big controversies on voting and elections so far. You've got that much going for you.

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/10 01:06:03 UTC

The voting topic was certainly heated and it contained a lot of technical detail. I'd always thought voting was a pretty simple concept until Jack suggested "Range Voting" and then I did some research into voting in general (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system).

I don't want to rehash that whole discussion, but Range voting is simply inappropriate for cases where people have real preferences in the result. The only example Jack could give for Range voting in the real world was the Olympics where judges score each performance (I think their range is 0 to 10, but we were using 0 to 100). The assumption is that the judges are impartial and have no vested interest in the outcome, so their scores are not supposed to reflect a personal preference (although we know that assumption has failed even in the Olympics). When people who are voting DO have a personal preference in the outcome, then they can optimize the likelihood of getting what they want by voting the maximim (like 10 or 100) for what they want and 0 for what they don't want. In other words, they ignore the instructions that tell them to somehow "be objective" when assigning a score. When push comes to shove, that's what real people will do.

Here's a perfect real world example of Range voting from Scott's actual banning at the HGAA:



The actual vote by each member is shown in the "Ban" and "Not Ban" columns. I added the "Ban?" column to show the individual preference of each voter (red for Ban and blue for Not Ban).

If you count those who preferred to ban Scott (last column) you'll see that there were 5 who preferred the "Ban" over the "Not Ban". But there were 6 who preferred "Not Ban" over "Ban"!!! In the normal "one man, one vote" system that we're familiar with, Scott would NOT have been banned. And in the Condorcet system that I advocated, Scott wouldn't have been banned either. But using Jack's "Range Voting" system, Scott was banned by a minority of the members!!! So it turned out that the somewhat obscure "method of voting" discussion (that went on for many pages) ended up being critical to the outcome and entire future of the HGAA.

You may also remember that I predicted this would happen. I said that when push came to shove, people would vote with 0's and 100's to maximize their chances of getting what they wanted. Jack replied that anyone who voted like that would clearly be seen as being "corrupt" (that's the word Jack used). But then look how Jack (SG) and most of his supporters voted: 100 and 0!!

It's also interesting to note that some of the people who didn't want to vote with absolute 0's (like HGAAflyer and PilotGuy) ended up putting a "1" in the "Ban" column. It turned out that those two 1's ended up being the difference between Scott being banned (552) and not being banned (551). Yet given their obvious preferences (1 for "Ban", and 100 for "Not Ban"), they ended up defeating themselves by trying to abide by Jack's admonition against voting with a zero. It was a stupid system.

So what seemed like endless pages of squabbling about an unimportant issue ... turned out to be pretty important after all!!

Finally, any organization will have disagreements - sometimes bitter disagreements. It must be designed to withstand those disagreements and not disintegrate. Jack's pressure and crazy voting system won the day at the HGAA. He ended up kicking out everyone who disagreed with him, and he ended up with unchallenged control of the HGAA. So why didn't he continue to promote the HGAA after that? That's the question that reveals his true movtives. Jack didn't really want the HGAA to succeed, and that's why it's in ... the "Dustbin of History".

Fascinating, Bob. Now tell us all about the fairness of the voting system under which all Bob Show bannings to date have been executed. Weight given to Bob's vote - one hundred percent. Weight given to the votes of all other highly valued members (including, of course, the target) - zero percent.

Maybe you could create a little graphic to illustrate the system to help your pet douchebags better understand the math.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1658
Criminal Harassment on OZ Forum - Victim Banned

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/08 09:15:01 UTC

We will need to come up with a way to find suitable volunteers for cases as they arise.

I'm thinking that we could have a topic where people volunteering for mediation duty can sign up. Then people who have a dispute can look through the list to see if they find anyone that they both respect enough to help them out. They could carry out the discussions privately or open a topic for the case.

It might work in some cases, but it might be a disaster in others. As with everything on the US Hawks, we can wade into it slowly with some test cases to see what works and what doesn't. But as Wingspan mentioned, this is a nice thing for a national hang gliding association to provide to its members.

So who's interested in experimenting with this idea?

Bill Cummings - 2015/01/08 20:17:57 UTC

Like a mock court as a test?

Scott C. Wise - 2015/01/08 20:32:35 UTC

I love experiments!

Yeah?

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=805
Aerotowing Guidelines

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/09 22:30:38 UTC

Hi Tad and Bill,

As I mentioned in the other topic, I've decided to "do the experiment" to determine if Tad's postings are hurting or helping the US Hawks. To make that determination, I've restricting Tad to the "Free Speech Zone". So if you'd like to continue the conversation there, please feel free to do so and post the name of that topic here (along with a link) so people can continue to follow the conversation.

My restriction of Tad to the Free Speech Zone isn't intended as a judgement of his ideas, but as a response to his assertion that his postings are helping to grow the US Hawks. I hope everyone who's enjoyed corresponding with Tad will continue to do so in the Free Speech Zone.

Thanks, and I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

How did you like that one? I'm guessing just fine 'cause you've never expressed a single syllable's worth of objection to it. And I'm guessing you'd have been just as fine if it had been you Dr. Josef Kuczewski had selected to "do the experiment" "for about a month".

But details would need to be worked out.

Why? They never have been before. Bob's always done just fine making up "details" as he goes along.

As in, from where do we get our guinea pigs?

You don't need to get them. Bob just designates them.

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/09 19:58:56 UTC

We could reach into the "dustbin of history" to pull up interesting cases.

Or we could use The Bob Show.

For example, we could investigate the various bannings from various sites (HGAA purge, HangGliding.org, Oz Forum, KiteStrings...). We could pick a case, look into the facts, and render a decision.

Yeah, why don't you do that with Kite Strings, Bob?

Two bannings over here - yours and Sam's. Make cases that you shouldn't have been banned thirty times over and that your off the scale stupid pigfucker buddy...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=592
Linknife

Sam Kellner - 2010/03/28 21:41:19 UTC

Yeah, I don't even read all of those long winded "explanations".

...ever had a molecule's worth of business being on here in the first place. Find ONE PERSON - other than you two assholes - to raise some ghost of objection. To date there's been total zilch.

The only danger with those cases is that they may cut "close to the bone" for some of our members (myself included) and that may introduce a bias.

Fine. Let's hear them and deal with them.

On the other hand, all cases have some amount of bias, so maybe that's part of what needs to be tested.

We could also review some of USHPA's decisions. There have been a number of pilots who've had their instructor's ratings removed or even their membership itself.

But not Sam...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7462005802_bbc0ac66ac_o.jpg


http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1081
Platform towing /risk mitigation / accident

Sam Kellner - 2012/07/03 02:25:58 UTC

No, you don't get an accident report.

Not the slightest hint of a tarnish on his record. They didn't even mandate that he purchase another little red rubber FOCUSED PILOT wristband.

We could review those cases. We could even make up a case - either from scratch or loosely based on something we've seen.

How 'bout discussing bannings based upon obvious and undisputed violations of clearly stated rules - preferably when the rules aren't selectively enforced? Your bullshit justification for banning me was to make The Bob Show a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. So how come you haven't in over three years since put anything on your bogus books to preclude major threats to people of varying ages such as myself from membership? 'Cause you're only worried about major threats to people of varying ages who won't kiss your ass in the manner you desire?

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1690
US Hawks Board of Directors Testing in 2015

Scott C. Wise - 2015/01/10 04:40:04 UTC

I think it is critical that serious work towards an Incorporated Association is better not done in "public". Jacmac's points about the HGAA fiasco are well taken.

Not so much by me.

Also, as far as Bob's comments go, he is right about the errors connected with the "results" of the voting debate.

But either civil or uncivil debates on the details required to create a new hang gliding organization are of no interest to the "average" future member. Making things work, behind close doors, allows the involved parties to say what they want and need to say - without being on display for all to see.

And so there is no misunderstanding, I think a record can surely be kept of the process. Once the finished product emerges, if someone wants to see the three months of back and forth posting, texting, emailing, . . . etc. well, let them have it.

But it's a rare individual who wants to watch their car being made as it passes down the assembly line.

I'll bet you don't find a lot of channels being changed when they put that kinda thing on Nova.

It's a rare couple who want to see every nail being driven and 2x4 lifted in the process of having their new house built.

You've seen one nail driven or two by four lifted you've seen 'em all.

The finished product is what matters. In a positive way, a successful end justifies the tedious, boring, perhaps argumentative(?) means.

I'll stop here and let my comments sink in. In the mean time, talk among yourselves.

Brian Scharp - 2015/01/10 15:53:53 UTC

Brian McMahon - 2015/01/08 18:45:45 UTC

Nobody wants to prevent or stifle accidents from being reported...

Please define "Nobody" because I can hardly even recall a discussion about an accident that doesn't involve some form of aversion to it, let alone reports being made about it.

Brian Scharp - 2015/01/10 19:04:08 UTC

Nobody really wants accidents being reported and discussed. You can find him in the Free Speech Zone.

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/10 19:17:43 UTC

Nobody really wants to discuss ... Tad.

Yeah, Tad gets discussed quite a bit out on the wire. 'Specially after Rooney Linking pro toads slam in real hard.

For clarification to newer Hawks members, the user choosing the name "Nobody"...

Whom you and everyone and his dog bloody well know is Steve Davy.

...has been restricted to the "Free Speech Zone"...

Bullshit. YOU restricted him to there. Fuck the passive tense crap.

...because he's attacked people...

...who aren't Tad...

...without verifying who he is in real life.

So? I don't see any clearly stated rules on that issue. Just bullshit you make up as it suits you and apply selectively.

I've offered to have a phone conversation....

Bullshit.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1638
Basement Bob

Bob Kuczewski - 2014/11/19 19:22:40 UTC

So while my offer to reinstate "Nobody" based on a telephone discussion stands, I have to say that it will be a long conversation (maybe many conversations) and may not conclude with a restoration of posting rights.

...with him to resolve the matter...

Resolve what matter? You know who he is and how he feels about the people he's attacking.

...but so far he has refused.

1. Good. Name another national hang gliding association in which somebody has to have a long conversation - maybe many - with the big dick to be instated with full rights and privileges, including being able to tell another member he's got shit for brains and call him a pigfucker.

2. Oh. So that would resolve the matter. So how come you said?:

So while my offer to reinstate "Nobody" based on a telephone discussion stands, I have to say that it will be a long conversation (maybe many conversations) and may not conclude with a restoration of posting rights.

You're not smart enough to make a good liar.

This is the kind of vile posting that we've seen from "Nobody" so far...

And this is the kind of vile posting that we've seen from your dickhead buddy Sam Kellner so far:
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1081
Platform towing /risk mitigation / accident

Sam Kellner - 2012/07/03 02:25:58 UTC

No, you don't get an accident report.

...(note that the asterisks were added by the forum ... not by "Nobody"):

Who the hel* gives a flying fuc* - asshol*?

Nobody speaking to Bill Cummings on Feb 22, 2014 wrote:
You've got s*** for brains, Bill. Rot in Hell pigf*****.

There's certainly nothing wrong with people being critical of others, but this level of vile hatred requires the person making the post to stand behind their words with their true - and verifiable - identity.

1. Show me the rule, motherfucker.

2. So how come it takes a long conversation, maybe many, with anything but certainty of resolution to verify his identity?

3. Here's how Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney verified his identity:

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

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 05:37:34 UTC

I suspect you ARE Tad.

Ridgerodent - 2011/08/25 05:40:20 UTC

No, but what he writes makes sense to me.
But thanks for the compliment.

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 05:42:28 UTC

I'm Member #78142
To whom am I speaking?
I'm an instructor, so I can verify your name/number against the USHPA database.

Ridgerodent - 2011/08/25 05:48:31 UTC

88875
Steve Davy

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 05:56:41 UTC

I've sent you a "pilot connect" message.
If you are Steve Davy, then you'll receive it.

If you're Steve, sorry to be a prick about this.. but since you seem to have read Tad's blatherings, then you will likely also be familiar with why I'm being a prick.

Christopher LeFay - 2011/08/25 06:19:42 UTC

A privilege afforded anyone, instructor or no.

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 06:23:15 UTC

Too right Christopher.
I didn't realize that till after I sent it... which is what the email bit is about of course.
He can claim to be Steve, and maybe he is... but he can't read Steve's email unless he is.

Thus far, I am still awaiting a reply.
I was serious too... he sounds like Tad.

You're right too... at the end of the day, he's a Troll... just as Tad is a huge troll.

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 06:25:28 UTC

Nope... drat... just a plain ole troll.
But, an outted troll.

Tell me why that wouldn't work a lot better than half a dozen hour long phone calls - if your purpose is ACTUALLY to verify his identity.

Hey Steve... The motherfucker has painted himself into a corner - if you wanna hit him with this strategy. He'll undoubtedly pull some bullshit to weasel out of it - but it'll be fun watching him squirm for a while.

By the way, the decision on how to deal with someone like "Nobody" (or Tad) is a good candidate topic for the Trial Board.

1. Who the fuck says Lord Bob needs to deal with anything? Why don't you mind your own goddam business and let the combatants deal with each other?

2. How 'bout a decision on how to deal with someone like Bob? It was a long overdue no brainer for me over here.

It would be good to see how the US Hawks Board would handle these cases.

Yeah, big fuckin' priority. End all hostilities between all members of a national hang gliding organization and get everyone to stop using naughty words with eighty percent of the letters autoreplaced by asterisks. Then maybe in another five or ten years you'll be able to fit this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7462005802_bbc0ac66ac_o.jpg


sorta thing into your agenda - asshole.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1690
US Hawks Board of Directors Testing in 2015

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/01/11 16:24:45 UTC

List of volunteers so far...
- wingspan33
- bobk

So Bob, now that you've assembled your roster of volunteers for your Make-Believe Bob Show Board of Directors...

What kind of process are you planning on using for selecting the most suitable / best qualified individuals? Are you planning on running background checks on anybody to ensure that The Bob Show remains a safe place for people of varying ages to visit?

I'd scrutinize those wingspan33 / Scott C. Wise and bobk / Bob Kuczewski individuals with particular care. I've heard that both of them are poison to this sport and have been permanently banned from the two largest international hang gliding forums in every possible way imaginable. Also heard that that Bob Kuczewski character was recently arrested for interfering with a paragliding instructor.

Regardless of what you end up with I can't advise you strongly enough to establish and rigorously enforce some clear rules and sharply defined checks and balances to avoid the problems of factionalization and conflict of interest issues which have catastrophically plagued so many other hang gliding organizations.

[<BS>]

What kind of process are you planning on using for selecting the most suitable / best qualified individuals?

I'd like to propose that we form a Board and we have the Board work together for most of 2015 making decisions. But those decisions will only be advisory. I will still reserve the right to over-rule those decisions based on what I believe is best for the US Hawks. As time goes on, I'm hoping that I won't ever feel the need to use that "veto" power, and by the end of 2015 we'll hopefully be making all of our decisions by the US Hawks Board of Directors.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/02/23 18:22:16 UTC

Tad,

I believe you're a brilliant fellow, and I'm happy to have you on this forum. Thanks for taking the time to post. I mean that very sincerely.

But we may have some fundamental disagreements. There's nothing wrong with that, and I actually think it's great because it allows us to challenge each other and helps us hone our arguments. But it does bring up the question of whether or not our goals are sufficiently aligned for us to actually work toward any shared results.

For example, I really believe that the US Hawks should be an organization that invites a full range of perspectives. Those that stand up to the tests of time will bubble to the top, and those that are garbage will be exposed. That's how I believe we can best interface the human mind (which is prone to all sorts of self-deceptions) with the underlying physics of the universe (including Newton's laws). It's the scientific method applied to aviation by anyone with the intelligence and discipline to do so. I very much value experts, and I tend to highly endorse their advice. But when we turn experts (who give advice) into kings (who mandate laws) we end up with USHPA. We've already got USHPA. If you want USHPA-like control, then you should work within USHPA to get it or start another organization and declare yourself king. I might even join it ... if the price is right.

But with US Hawks, I'm trying to do something different. I'm trying to build an organization where we use our wisdom (both individual and collective) to sift through the many options and continually choose the best path. That might be the "Tad Release" today and the "Rooney Improved Release" tomorrow. You're right that physics hasn't changed, but our creativity and ability to use new ideas and materials is always evolving. We need an organization that can make room for that evolution and embrace it. That's why I started the HGAA, and that's why I started the US Hawks.

So to summarize my position, I would like the US Hawks to make recommendations (which will hopefully become widely accepted and respected) but I would also like the US Hawks to be tolerant and supportive of the experimentation and innovation which are an integral part of the human spirit. I'd like to hear your goals for the US Hawks as well. Maybe we can find a way to work together (and maybe not). I hope so because I appreciate what you bring to the table.

[<BS>]

The sooner you can show an ability to make

...decisions based on what I believe is best...

the more suitable and qualified you'll be.