Annual HG dues for an HG only Organization - Hang Gliding Org - Worlds largest Hang Gliding community, discover Hang Gliding

Search

  • Sorry...You must register to activate searching









Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hang Gliding Org Forum Index -> The Basement->Annual HG dues for an HG only Organization
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How much in annual dues are you willing to pay for an HG only organization?
$50
5%
 5%  [ 1 ]
$75
25%
 25%  [ 5 ]
$100
60%
 60%  [ 12 ]
$125
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
$150
10%
 10%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 20

sam kellner
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 401
Location: between Zapata and BigSpring

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #81   
jjcote wrote:
They require membership because it's the only way they have of knowing whether the pilot has the requisite skills, and they have worked to determine what rating should be required. One alternative would be for flying to just be allowed for all comers. .


Since the site insurance isn't a big thing, an 'alternative', that sounds real, is another HG assn. with pilot proficiency rating standards greater than or equal to USHPA.

Thanks jj,
mosh
Send private message  Rate this post
Alex
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #82   
jjcote wrote:
In contrast, we have several sites in New England that are on publicly owned land, including some state parks. I'm not sure which ones are insured sites through USHPA (I think that some are not), but USHPA membership is required. The reason is that the rangers in charge of the park are fine with having hang gliders and paragliders fly there, provided the pilots know what they are doing. They require membership because it's the only way they have of knowing whether the pilot has the requisite skills, and they have worked with the local club to determine what rating should be required. One alternative would be for flying to just be allowed for all comers. With that approach, the result would be unqualified people with ebay wings going down in the trees, followed by involved rescues, and before long the rangers would say that there is an inherent difference between flying and other activities: you guys crash and get hurt, and we can't have that happening here, so get out! (And exactly this has happened in the past when incidents have occurred involving pilots who did have ratings, but at least it happens less frequently than it would with everybody welcome to give it a try).


So if a pilot can afford membership he/she is therefore competent as a pilot?

I guess no one has advised the those particular rangers (as above) that the FAA doesn't require HG or PG pilots to have a license, that the Federal government has not ceded any authority to USHPA re: regulating pilots, and that other users of public lands do not have to prove competency (off-roaders, hikers, base jumpers--just to name a few).

Thanks for the update on your local area.

Alex
Send private message  Rate this post
TomGalvin
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3855
Location: ............... Pagosa Springs, Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #83   
sg wrote:
Everyone needs to cease and desist.



Link

_________________
Hummingbird rancher
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Mavi Gogun
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 987
Location: Istanbul (not Constantinople)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #84   
sg wrote:
Mavi didnt think describing someone as a wind up monkey is an attack, so implying they arent even lucid is not likely to register as an attack either.


Both are misrepresentations. As Jack well knows (since I have made pains to make my intent clear to him), I was describing the degree of annoyance of repetition to be akin to that produced by one of those wind-up monkeys that smashes cymbals together. The intent was not to describe Mark. Now my use of lucid is being misrepresented: describing an argument as lacking lucidity is far different than declaring a person not to be lucid. In the case of Mark's words, I sometimes find them unintelligible- lacking lucidity; however, I do not call his sanity into question- which would be the case if I had said that he wasn't lucid. "Take the time to be lucid" should be read "take the time necessary to craft an understandable argument" -which I credited him with being capable of.

So, Jack, was your above quote intended as an "ad hominem attack", or was it just an innocent misunderstanding spawned from misinterpretation? it wouldn't be the first misunderstanding today. Wouldn't it be great if I we could just presume good will?

Generally, I disdain using emoticons- it's so easy to read them as being ironic. Still,

surrender

Seems to me that the topical discussion of this thread has been greatly worthwhile- it would be a pity to lock it; I regret any contribution I've made in that direction.
Send private message  Rate this post
sam kellner
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 401
Location: between Zapata and BigSpring

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #85   
Mavi Gogun wrote:
I can only tune that noise out for so long before being overwhelmed by an urge to step on the monkey.


This sounds like an echo of an earlier post/reMark, that actually sounds like a physical threat?
Send private message  Rate this post
jjcote
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3366
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #86   
Alex wrote:
jjcote wrote:
In contrast, we have several sites in New England that are on publicly owned land, including some state parks. I'm not sure which ones are insured sites through USHPA (I think that some are not), but USHPA membership is required. The reason is that the rangers in charge of the park are fine with having hang gliders and paragliders fly there, provided the pilots know what they are doing. They require membership because it's the only way they have of knowing whether the pilot has the requisite skills, and they have worked with the local club to determine what rating should be required. One alternative would be for flying to just be allowed for all comers. With that approach, the result would be unqualified people with ebay wings going down in the trees, followed by involved rescues, and before long the rangers would say that there is an inherent difference between flying and other activities: you guys crash and get hurt, and we can't have that happening here, so get out! (And exactly this has happened in the past when incidents have occurred involving pilots who did have ratings, but at least it happens less frequently than it would with everybody welcome to give it a try).


So if a pilot can afford membership he/she is therefore competent as a pilot?

I guess no one has advised the those particular rangers (as above) that the FAA doesn't require HG or PG pilots to have a license, that the Federal government has not ceded any authority to USHPA re: regulating pilots, and that other users of public lands do not have to prove competency (off-roaders, hikers, base jumpers--just to name a few).

Thanks for the update on your local area.

Alex

Well, hang on. It takes more than just membership, it also requires the rating. Yes, if there were another widely recognized rating organization, then for some of the sites perhaps that would be adequate. As far as the membership being current, yeah, that's clearly a disconnect. If someone earned a H4 rating, then dropped his membership but continued flying regularly, you'd expect him to be competent, but if he earned a H4 rating, then kept sending in his dues but hadn't really flown for 10 or 15 years, not so much. Yet the second pilot is the one who would be allowed to fly. Does that make sense? No, not really. We don't have any required mechanism for checking up on skills.

As far as the FAA not requiring a license, sure that's true, but that doesn't mean that the park people have to allow it. They make decisions as to what activities are allowed on the land they're in charge of. Off-road motor vehicles are not allowed at all (AFAIK) in the parks I'm talking about. Hiking and mountain biking are considered to have low enough risks that they are not a concern. There's one piece of publicly owned property around here where you can get ticketed for cross-country skiing -- a stupid policy in my mind, but one that the people in charge have the authority to make. Base jumping is (AFAIK) prohibited almost everywhere in the USA. Hang gliding? Well, the park people have decided that it's a reasonable activity for those who have learned how to control their equipment, but a place like Mt. Greylock is not a suitable spot for beginners. So they say that you can do it if you've got evidence that you know what you're doing. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Meanwhile, there's another piece of public property where flying is allowed, but there are seasonal restrictions -- they don't want us flying there when there are nesting endangered birds or big crowds of beachgoers. I don't think the dates that they've picked make sense, but it sure makes sense to tell the pilots to stay away on summer weekends.

_________________
H4 + most skills
WW U2 145, WW UltraSport 147, WW Falcon2 170, PacAir Vision Mark IV 17
My HG wiki profile and my flying blog
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
SeeMarkFly
2 thumbs up
2 thumbs up


Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Posts: 1713
Location: Lakeview Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #87   
Mavi Gogun wrote:
In the case of Mark's words, I sometimes find them unintelligible- lacking lucidity; however, I do not call his sanity into question- which would be the case if I had said that he wasn't lucid. "Take the time to be lucid" should be read "take the time necessary to craft an understandable argument" -which I credited him with being capable of.
Thank you for the credit.
But you are trying to hold me to a standard that I do not posses nor care to acquire.
I am quite happy with who I am and what I am doing.

As for the degree of my lucidity, maybe I can help you out a bit.
At this time of night I have usually consumed some beer.
I will post things that might be "hard to follow" in the early evenings.
Next morning I might have to clarify what was posted the night before.
Notice that I do not take back what I said nor apologize for anything, but sometimes I feel the need to elaborate a bit more to clarify the point that I was unable to make the night before.

I am not against business, I am against BIG business.
(Hay Dennis, how about a new law that only allows 5 employees for ANY company)
So I enjoy life, I enjoy Lakeview, I enjoy hang gliding, I enjoy posting, I enjoy correcting my posts, I enjoy myself, and I'm about to go enjoy some sleep.
You should try and enjoy some of this stuff too, or just use that ignore button.

NOW that THAT is out of the way.
The subject of this topic is what dues might one pay.
And Mark says (here it comes).
We don't need dues.
We don't need insurance.
We don't need ratings.

We just need a concerted voice.
Period.
Done.

Get your rating elsewhere.(USHpA)
Buy your insurance from somebody else. (USHpA sells it)
We only NEED the voice.

_________________
Mark Webber
225 Falcon (I can land this one)
163 Super Sport (I can't land this one)
KG6HOT

complacency about complacency is probably the enemy.
Send private message  Rate this post
sg
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 11096

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #88   
It strikes me as odd, that you can see an ad hominem in my comment while at the same time seeing no ad hominem referring to someone as a wind up monkey and implying they are not always lucid Rolling Eyes

When you attack someone, there has to be this long winded description and explanation of why its not really an attack and what your real intent was.

I have a better idea. Why not choose language that isnt so easily construed as an attack so frequently? Because im certainly not the only one who perceived an obvious attack.

HGXC wrote:

Who the hell are you to tell Mark or anyone about being lucid !!!



As a moderator, I have to make a judgement call on whether or not a significant number of people would take offense to being described in any way as a wind up monkey or not lucid.

I reasonably expect anyone addressed in this manner to strike back. That makes the call fairly easy. Your comments added nothing to the discussion, other than to inflame the discussion, so why bother making the comment?

Did you really expect someone to think to themselves... oh yeah... I really am acting like a little wind up monkey clashing my symbols all the time. He's right! I have no reason to be upset.

Come on now. Know what a good future test would be?
If you have to write a paragraph to explain why what you just said is not an attack, then thats probably a damn good indicator that it will be interpreted as an attack.



Mavi Gogun wrote:
sg wrote:
Mavi didnt think describing someone as a wind up monkey is an attack, so implying they arent even lucid is not likely to register as an attack either.


Both are misrepresentations. As Jack well knows (since I have made pains to make my intent clear to him), I was describing the degree of annoyance of repetition to be akin to that produced by one of those wind-up monkeys that smashes cymbals together. The intent was not to describe Mark. Now my use of lucid is being misrepresented: describing an argument as lacking lucidity is far different than declaring a person not to be lucid. In the case of Mark's words, I sometimes find them unintelligible- lacking lucidity; however, I do not call his sanity into question- which would be the case if I had said that he wasn't lucid. "Take the time to be lucid" should be read "take the time necessary to craft an understandable argument" -which I credited him with being capable of.

So, Jack, was your above quote intended as an "ad hominem attack", or was it just an innocent misunderstanding spawned from misinterpretation? it wouldn't be the first misunderstanding today. Wouldn't it be great if I we could just presume good will?

Generally, I disdain using emoticons- it's so easy to read them as being ironic. Still,

surrender

Seems to me that the topical discussion of this thread has been greatly worthwhile- it would be a pity to lock it; I regret any contribution I've made in that direction.

_________________

H4, AT, FL, TFL, AWCL, CL, FSL, RLF, TUR, X-C
Aeros Stealth III 142

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Mavi Gogun
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 987
Location: Istanbul (not Constantinople)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #89   
sg wrote:
It strikes me as odd, that you can see an ad hominem in my comment while at the same time seeing no ad hominem referring to someone as a wind up monkey and implying they are not always lucid


It's one thing not to share my my perspective- it's quite another to roll along like you never heard it or can't of understanding it. Was I highly critical of Mark Webber's effect on the conversation? Absolutely. Was it a denigration of his character? No.

For some reason, after slapping Dennis on the wrist, you felt it necessary (in post # 80) to explain to Dennis that his vitriol was pointless- since I probably wasn't able to discriminate:

sg wrote:
Mavi didnt think describing someone as a wind up monkey is an attack, so implying they arent even lucid is not likely to register as an attack either.


You didn't use a solitary word to take umbrage with- no dangling monkey, if you will- but the picture you paint is just as damning. Could I have been gentler, more considerate? Sure- as could have you, Jack. I suppose you made a judgment call- as did I.

sg wrote:
When you attack someone, there has to be this long winded description and explanation of why its not really an attack and what your real intent was.


When the instance is inflated and taken out of context- and then repeatedly, persistently miss-characterized, it seemed necessary to be explicit- a circumstance you helped foster.

sg wrote:
Your comments added nothing to the discussion, other than to inflame the discussion, so why bother making the comment?


There was a lot of great discussion in this thread; Paul H, in post #54, gave a very cogent reply to Mark Webber's flippant disregard of Mark Forbes' well considered words, by illustrating the problem presented by site bandits and why they inspired ire. Webber's response was a monologue, disregarded any of the substance or consideration put into Paul's post, and characterized the position Paul advocated as that of an exclusive elitist. This sort of nonsense blows the signal to noise ratio totally off the chart. Ya, I was pissed-off at Webber- I was appreciating the discussion, and didn't want to see it devolve. Ya, I could have been nicer- or a good deal harsher -or, perhaps, more constructive. Sometimes constructive works great, sometimes a dope slap- or a blend. If you can't read this thread and see something far more egregious than the word moneky, then I don't know what to say to you.
Send private message  Rate this post
sg
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 11096

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #90   
Mavi Gogun wrote:
sg wrote:
It strikes me as odd, that you can see an ad hominem in my comment while at the same time seeing no ad hominem referring to someone as a wind up monkey and implying they are not always lucid


It's one thing not to share my my perspective- it's quite another to roll along like you never heard it or can't of understanding it. Was I highly critical of Mark Webber's effect on the conversation? Absolutely. Was it a denigration of his character? No.


Red Herring. It didnt claim it was a denigration of his character, I claimed it was a personal attack.

Mavi Gogun wrote:
... all I hear is "USHPA BAD, ME NO LIKE USHPA", over and over and over... like a whined-up monkey. I can only tune that noise out for so long before being overwhelmed by an urge to step on the monkey.


Lets see here... you paint him a caveman. Then a whined-up monkey you have an urge to step on.

Sure Mavi, nothing personal here, no attack whatsoever, and the moon is made of blue cheese. Im sure you would take absolutely no offense, or complain of ad hominems in the future if I started describing you this way. Yet, you quickly claim ad hominems at the slightest perception of attack when aim is taken at you. See below....

Mavi Gogun wrote:

sg wrote:
Mavi didnt think describing someone as a wind up monkey is an attack, so implying they arent even lucid is not likely to register as an attack either.


You didn't use a solitary word to take umbrage with- no dangling monkey, if you will- but the picture you paint is just as damning. Could I have been gentler, more considerate? Sure- as could have you, Jack. I suppose you made a judgment call- as did I.


OMG!!!! What an incredibly damning and terrible personal attack, oh lorrrddyyyy! ROFL

Mavi paints someone a caveman, a whined up monkey and less than lucid and its all ok, everyone is misrepresenting him. I state a simple fact that you didnt think both instances of your attacks were attacks and somehow you construe this an attack.


Mavi Gogun wrote:


... Ya, I was pissed-off at Webber- I was appreciating the discussion, and didn't want to see it devolve. Ya, I could have been nicer- or a good deal harsher -or, perhaps, more constructive. Sometimes constructive works great, sometimes a dope slap- or a blend. If you can't read this thread and see something far more egregious than the word moneky, then I don't know what to say to you.


If I said I thought you sometimes needed a dope slap, you would be claiming ad hominem in an instant. But since a dope needs a dope slap sometimes, and in this instance were talking about Mark who pissed you off, its perfectly ok. The pattern repeats.

Oh and trust me, I do see something far more egregious than the word monkey. I see someone who expects people to walk on egg shells around them, while expecting others to have very thick skin.

_________________

H4, AT, FL, TFL, AWCL, CL, FSL, RLF, TUR, X-C
Aeros Stealth III 142

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Mavi Gogun
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 987
Location: Istanbul (not Constantinople)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #91   
sg wrote:
Red Herring. It didnt claim it was a denigration of his character, I claimed it was a personal attack. *snip* Lets see here... you paint him a caveman.


You have to have at least a little linguistic fidelity, Jack, for your arguments to have integrity; defame and belittle- this is the meaning of denigrate -and your erroneous characterization of "caveman" would certainly fit that. Of course, I never called Mark Webber a caveman, or a monkey, or insane- these are the straw man assertions you have propped up. I could say that you are doggedly determined to hold on to a position once you take it, regardless of evidence- and I wouldn't be calling you a dog. This quibbling about "I said attack, not denigrate" is just pointless contradiction- unless the point is to distract from that straw man.

sg wrote:
Yet, you quickly claim ad hominems at the slightest perception of attack when aim is taken at you.


You missed the point, Jack- I wasn't complaining about your tact, but using it to illustrate how your words could be construed- or misconstrued. I thought if you could see my position from your perspective, you might gain a degree of flexibility, see beyond the position you were calcified into. I also wanted to show that contempt and disdain don't have to be coupled with a one-word aspersion. Why not just say that? Well Jack, I've tried talking to you straight- and you've disregarded what I say in preference to a reinterpretation.

sg wrote:
If I said I thought you sometimes needed a dope slap, you would *snip*


Let's stop right there. Be critical of what I actually say- as apposed to what you imagine I would say. That way leads to a down spiraling morass.

sg wrote:
I see someone who expects people to walk on egg shells with them, while expecting them to have very thick skin.


You would be much happier, as would I, if you spoke to your own feelings, rather than what you imagine mine are. Earlier today, I sent you a personal message listing a number noteworthy "personal attacks" from early last month. Why? Because they were examples of attacks on the character of the person- not criticism of behavior, as I have made here; I wanted to provide a bit of scale. I brought those aspersions to your attention now to emphasize that I did not do so then. Point? The thin-skied assertion is demonstrably false. Go back and actually read the referenced thread for my reaction.

Mark Webber spoke up for himself before you rode in and arbitrated good and bad; frankly, I'm far more concerned with his take on the mater than yours. This entire back and forth has more to do with a personality conflict between us, I think. Look back at the inception of this ping-pong match and you will see that I didn't take issue with your reproach for overly harsh criticism, but the ad hominem attack characterization. It's just not accurate. Go here for a def:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem

I was critical of Mark's approach- I think it does his cause a disservice. Illustrating why is not an attack on his character- no mater how many times you say it is. More importantly, it wasn't intended as an attack on his character, which has been made painfully clear.

Inigo Montoya wrote:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Send private message  Rate this post
HGXC
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 3299

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #92   
Most prolonged arguments on forums stem from personalities conflicts. Did you just realize that? Especially when it takes a back and forth "I meant this you said that" type of flow. and many of these tit-for-tats are ion the end about control.

If I am wrong Mavi then tell me...once jack had his say and you had yours so Why would you want to post anymore on the issue ?

You claim you find value in this post ....well why is most of your posts are about explaining to the readers that you were not insulting and clarifying your lanquage.

For a guy with very good command of his volcabulary, you certainly have great difficulty explaining what you mean. This is the Internet, it's a forum about hang gliding, we don't give any extra credit for being elusive and overly subtle with words. You hide behind false names and residences and use a choice of words that are out of context to the general conversation. Now you aren't breaking any laws... You have every right to act the way you do. I just like to know what's in it for you to do that? How it working for you?

Cheers
Dennis

_________________
Organ Donation Saves Lives

Glider = Ventus B. ATOS B-V, Rating = H5, Private Pilot /Glider
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
jjcote
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3366
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #93   
What is with this false names and residences crap again? The worst thing I see is that he's trying to make us think he's actually a dog.

sg wrote:
If you have to write a paragraph to explain why what you just said is not an attack, then thats probably a damn good indicator that it will be interpreted as an attack.

I have a really good rule of thumb for determining if a post will be considered an attack. But I can't say what it is, because doing so would constitute an ad hominem argument...

_________________
H4 + most skills
WW U2 145, WW UltraSport 147, WW Falcon2 170, PacAir Vision Mark IV 17
My HG wiki profile and my flying blog
Send private message Blog  Rating: 3 thumbs up
Darbbb
2 thumbs up
2 thumbs up


Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1147
Location: Western Maryland

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #94   
sam kellner wrote:
jjcote wrote:
They require membership because it's the only way they have of knowing whether the pilot has the requisite skills, and they have worked to determine what rating should be required. One alternative would be for flying to just be allowed for all comers. .


Since the site insurance isn't a big thing, an 'alternative', that sounds real, is another HG assn. with pilot proficiency rating standards greater than or equal to USHPA.

Thanks jj,
mosh


Everyone could just join the HGAA. run

Kidding! ....I kid. Mr. Green
Send private message  Rate this post
SeeMarkFly
2 thumbs up
2 thumbs up


Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Posts: 1713
Location: Lakeview Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #95   
Darbbb wrote:
Everyone could just join the HGAA.
Couldn't hurt.
http://www.hangglidingassociationofamerica.org/hang-gliding-association-of-america/

_________________
Mark Webber
225 Falcon (I can land this one)
163 Super Sport (I can't land this one)
KG6HOT

complacency about complacency is probably the enemy.
Send private message  Rate this post
sam kellner
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 401
Location: between Zapata and BigSpring

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #96   
Mavi Gogun,

Since the forum moderator, and others, feel your posts are personal attacks,

I ask that you keep all communication here, if you want me to read it.

Please, no more PM.

Thanks,
Sam
Send private message  Rating: Bad stuff
HGXC
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 3299

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #97   
The crap as you put it has to do with wondering why someone would want us to think that he is a Turkish hang gliding dog called Mavi?

And yes I know we all have sign in names but usually we sign posts with our names.

Dennis

_________________
Organ Donation Saves Lives

Glider = Ventus B. ATOS B-V, Rating = H5, Private Pilot /Glider
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Dan Harding
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 703
Location: Washington State, close to the blanchard site

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #98   
Mavi, from the language you use in your post, I have to ask,??? are you a lawyer, proffessor, maybe a writer? An observation I have made is that you try to get the last word on a post instead of just dropping the argument, like that makes you the winner of said argument. come on, we are just all fellow pilots, it doesn't have to be that way. None of us should have to denigrate a fellow pilots character in a public forum, if some one has a problem with another person, there is a private massage that can be sent, so enough said, now lets get back to the main topic of HG dues and insurance and stuff.
_________________
U.S.H.G.A. # 20275
Send private message  Rate this post
Mavi Gogun
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 987
Location: Istanbul (not Constantinople)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #99   
sam kellner wrote:
Mavi Gogun,

Since the forum moderator, and others, feel your posts are personal attacks,

I ask that you keep all communication here, if you want me to read it.

Please, no more PM.

Thanks,
Sam


Of course, you could have sent that via private message. Why would you want to post it here, I wonder?

From my single message to you Sam:

sam kellner wrote:
Mavi Gogun wrote:
I can only tune that noise out for so long before being overwhelmed by an urge to step on the monkey.


This sounds like an echo of an earlier post/reMark, that actually sounds like a physical threat?


I don't know you, Sam, your character, disposition, agenda. My fist reaction is that you enjoy stirring the pot. Maybe not- maybe there is some back story I'm not privy to that would cast your missive in a more constructive light. So, what would that be, Sam? What is the back story that would lead you to posit that the above quote might be a very public threat on Mark Webber's well being?
Send private message  Rate this post
TomGalvin
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3855
Location: ............... Pagosa Springs, Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #100   
SeeMarkFly wrote:
Darbbb wrote:
Everyone could just join the HGAA.
Couldn't hurt.


That exercise in ego was counter productive to growing the sport.

_________________
Hummingbird rancher
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hang Gliding Org Forum Index -> The Basement
 
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6


 
Jump to:  


(c) HangGliding.org All rights reserved. Based on PhpBB