Dirty Dan

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-04 AT 08:17 PM (CDT)
 
Anybody know whats happened to the Dan Man? Haven't seen anything from him for a few days now and that just ain't normal. Don't know about anyone else but I miss his sense of humor and hard core honesty.

Bill

Am I the only one who has noticed his absense and has this opinion? Over 100 veiws and no one says a thing? Is this a taboo subject?

Bill

I think Dan is fine at least I hope he is,
I would bet he may be tending to his garden.

Hi Bill,
Yep, I noticed, but I have no clue as to what's up.
Bill <><

I have since heard a rumor that Len invited Dan not to post on here anymore do to the BOM and FP 20 opinions. Anyone else hear that too?

Bill

I flew with him on Saturday. He's fine.

That is good to hear!

Bill

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 09:10 PM (CDT)
 
Just got a anounomous email that has indicated that Dirty Dan has indeed left the forum. I don't know how everyone feels about this and don't care. He brought a brutally honest side to this forum. You may have not liked his opinions and no one was obligated to like them but they were down to earth and from the heart. I will miss him.

Bill

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 05:12 PM (CDT)
 
I hadn't heard anything. I'll likely see him this weekend and see what he has to say.

If he has, in fact, been given the boot, I'll likely bail too.

Randy

Edit: I should say that I have no reason to think he has been banned or anything, but if Dan has been kicked, I'd like to know.

Could be either way.. his choice maybe, whatever the reason I will miss his posts..

>If he has, in fact, been given the boot, I'll likely bail
>too.
>
>Randy

I don't know what we will do without either of you, but I am willing to try.

Dan was a trouble maker and dealt in sensationalism most of the time.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 05:47 PM (CDT)
 
You've been on here since April and feel that your that informed to make that kind of judgement? I doubt you have read enough of his posts to know what your talking about. Probably one of the drum beaters for that guy that won't spell COX correctly. Like them you mis-spell it too but don't know why you are doing it.

Bill

Ya gotta admit, he did keep things interesting.

AAHHRRGG!! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ--What a "Da Zeez"- arf arf < Paul

>>If he has, in fact, been given the boot, I'll likely bail
>>too.
>>
>>Randy
>
>
>I don't know what we will do without either of you, but I am
>willing to try.
>
>Dan was a trouble maker and dealt in sensationalism most of
>the time.
>
>
>Hawk

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Hawk: I don't know you ,but I do know Dan's contribution to the controlline community generally ,and to PA in particular.When your contribution is up to the same standard,feel free to comment.

>I hadn't heard anything. I'll likely see him this weekend
>and see what he has to say.
>
>If he has, in fact, been given the boot, I'll likely bail
>too.
>
>Randy
>
>Edit: I should say that I have no reason to think he has
>been banned or anything, but if Dan has been kicked, I'd
>like to know.

I have not had the chance to talk to Leonard since before the FAIs. However, I just checked Dan's status in regards to the board software. His login account is still active and he has full posting prvileleges. If Dan has left, he did it of his own free will.

I suppose this is a good time to broach a larger topic, though, and that is behavior on a message board, forum, or bulletin board. There are those (a minority, BTW) who think they have the "right" to full freedom of speach on a message board or forum such as SSW. That means they can and do insult, argue, and insinuate freely - often times with the moderator or owner of the board. The simple fact is they do not have that right. The owner and/or moderator of the board or forum can set the conditions for topics and conversation on the board. What they say, goes. If a person violates the rules, then they can be told to leave and have their access revoked. Usually there are numerous warnings prior to this happening.

For this to work, it requires restraint on both the moderator/owner and the users of the board. I've seen that from Leonard. I have been involved with this board since we set up the first pilot test for the software four years ago. I think I have seen Leonard close down three or four topics because he felt they were getting out of hand and accomplishing nothing. The board is his. That was his call. Otherwise he has been exceedingly patient with those of us who can and do get a bit passionate about what we do and at times take ourselves too seriously.

In the past I have told folks to liken a board as to a home and you are a guest in that home. As a guest you are treated with respect. However, there are limits as to what you can say or do. Also as a guest, you are expected to abide the hosts' rules and be respectful to the host. If the host says they don't want to talk about something any more, the topic is changed. As hosts, we would all expect that out of guests at our homes. Leonard expects the same out of us.

For those that disagree with the host/guest concept, I can only recommend that they start their own board and see how quickly it degenerates. I can even point folks to ISPs who, for about $8.00/month, will host your site, provide adequate board software as part of the package, and even register your domain name. Without some basic rules, though, they won't have much of a following after people get tired of being insulted and treated rudely.

For the vast majority who do behave as adults (including some of the "kids" on the board), I owe a debt of gratitude that I can never begin to repay. Not only have you made administration of the board simple and been patient when the software or the ISP tanked, but you have also taught me more than I could have learned in three lifetimes of building and flying. You also did it in a way that I didn't feel stupid. I tip my hat to all who have helped.

So, lets keep things in perspective. Follow the rules put forth by the owner of the board. We are all welcome guests here, but remember that we are guests, and our host expects us to act according to his guidelines. If he says that he wants to stop discussion on a topic, it stops. And, if someone is told to leave the board and has their access revoked, it was done after careful thought by a patient man after numerous warnings. Of the over 1000 people who have registered on the system, less than half a dozen have been told to go elsewhere.

I wish my old Army buddies were as well behaved.

V/r

Bob,

I comepletely agree. Len's board, Len's rules.

>Bob,
>
>I comepletely agree. Len's board, Len's rules.

Thanks, Randy. Lets all remember that the rules are few and Len shows remarkable patience.

V/r

>Just got a anounymous email that has indicated that Dirty
>Dan has indeed left the forum. I don't know how everyone
>feels about this and don't care. He brought a brutally
>honest side to this forum. You may have not liked his
>opinions and no one was obligated to like them but they were
>down to earth and from the heart. I will miss him.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Anonomous! TYPICAl!!!!!

I think the Daniel may be "on assignment".

When he reappears, I'm going to pull his wings off and chase him across the table with a lighter..

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves." -Edmund Hillary

HEY!

Slow down folks......methinks we're all taking ourselves WAY, WAY to seriously here. Some of you sound like you're about to get out the Tar& Feathers!

There are two sides to every ouestion; You do yourself a disservice not to look at both sides .
To assault ones character for expressing and opnion ,in good taste of course , is a sure display of lack of maturity
There are some younguns among us.
We have met the enemy and they is--------------

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 11:37 PM (CDT)
 
I'll have to go against the flow here.

Just about a week ago, for three days straight, Dan sent me personal messages. I skimmed through the first one and ignored the other two. It seemed to me that he was conducting some sort of behind-the-scenes campaign against Leonard. Telling me that Leonard had problems with "tranference", etc.

What some people call Dan's brutal honesty, I call nastiness. Dan was just plain nasty. I don't know what he's like offline, but his online behavior left a lot to be desired. He develops obsessions about certain people (such as Peabody) who become targets, and he hammers away at them whenever they post something. He says things that are way over the line about others, even to the point where Leonard has had to make him apologize. He can't express a difference in opinion without trying to make others feel small. Once in a while he actually contributes something interesting to the discussion, most of the time it's self-preening over his latest obsession (such as the OS .20FP).

I wish forums had killfiles, like Usenet does. Killfiles let you ignore people who annoy you by hiding their posts when you're reading the forum. Dan would have ended up in mine a long time ago. Compared to some others I've come across on electronic forums, he's actually pretty mild (you should check out some of the characters on rec.models.rockets, or even rec.sport.tabletennis), but he's not someone I find pleasant to interact with.

I don't know if he left because he was mad at Leonard, or Leonard banned him (or maybe he isn't gone at all, but just on hiatus, because he's mad at Leonard's deleting some of his posts recently), but I suspect Leonard has come to the same conclusion. Dan's behaviour was getting to be too much. If Len did give Dan the boot, then that's his choice. It's his BBS. I run mailing lists and BBSs, and once in a while you do have to kick disruptive people off, there's no avoiding it. Dan can go start his own forum somewhere if he's unhappy about it, or inhabit some other forum.

You want brutal honesty, that's brutal honesty. Most of the people here who feel the same I do are too polite to say it. And that's the last I'm going to say about this subject, either here or backchannel.

Well said Mr. Taib!

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 12:15 PM (CDT)
 
>you should check out some of the characters on rec.models.rockets

Jerry Irvine!

>I suppose this is a good time to broach a larger topic, though, and
>that is behavior on a message board, forum, or bulletin board.

I had thought some of the debates here on (forbidden subject) got
unruly, but...

Recently I have been looking at an amateur radio forum at QRZ.com
The code/no code and license restructuring debates there are
unbelievable. As someone put it, every thread there turns into a pig-
fight. The worst here is very mild in comparison.

Also, check out the "AMA Discussions" forum on rcuniverse.com -
yikes!!

Ed N. Oh yes. I remember you mentioning that you are an active "ham". I also check out the www.qrz.com site but I don't consider the code-no-code issue very important.

Look up my call sign K6BSU on the QRZ site for my bio and a picture of my 1938 Focke-Wulf 44J biplane.

Floyd
K6BSU since 1952

>Look up my call sign K6BSU on the QRZ site for my bio
>and a picture of my 1938 Focke-Wulf 44J biplane.

Very Cool!

>I don't consider the code-no-code issue very important.

I think most hams don't, there is a very vocal minority
on both sides who seem obsessed with it.

There is a moratorium on code/no code debates on qrz.com,
just like the moratorium on bravo oscar mike here.

73,
Ed/w9ngc

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 12:40 PM (CDT)
 
Some people couldn't recognize humor if it hit them in the face, i.e, the ED buying Steaks at the 2000 NATS---it was a joke taken seriously. All got good laughs except the ED. Lighten up, most of the "malacious" attacks are attempts at humor, others are just a difference of opinions. Nobody likes to think what they say are taken differently than they intended.
Since I'm only 67 years old, I'm probably still too naive to understand, but I have seen the humor and serious side of Dan and think he is a refreshing contributor to this forum.
Just my opinion and no offense intended. If some don't like his posts, don't read them.
If Leonard thinks any post is offensive or inappropriate, he can delete the post.
I have seen many other posts that struck my palate as much more offensive than any of Dan's including some on this topic!
Talk about personal attacks!!!!!

>Some people couldn't recognize humor if it hit them in the
>face, i.e, the ED buying Steaks at the 2000 NATS---it was a
>joke taken seriously. All got good laughs except the ED.
>Lighten up, most of the "malacious" attacks are attempts at
>humor, others are just a difference of opinions. Nobody
>likes to think what they say are taken differently than they
>intended.
>Since I'm only 67 years old, I'm probably still too naive to
>understand, but I have seen the humor and serious side of
>Dan and think he is a refreshing contributor to this forum.
>Just my opinion and no offense intended. If some don't like
>his posts, don't read them.
>If Leonard thinks any post is offensive or inappropriate, he
>can delete the post.
>I have seen many other posts that struck my palate as much
>more offensive than any of Dan's including some on this
>topic!
>Talk about personal attacks!!!!!

Hear!Hear! Bravo ! Bravissimo! At last! Someone who get's it!Even if you're still wet behind the ears(I've got you by three years).I take my HOBBY as seriously as anyone ,but,THEY ARE TOY AIRPLANES for crying out loud!!!!! Dan is one of the refreshing breaths of reality in a world of repressed,narrow minded,humorless,bigoted,cretins who wouldn't know satire or sardonicicsm if it walked up to them and smacked them in the face with a trout.

Ron B.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Charlie:

I'd be very interested in knowing which "side" think you think I assaulted.

The point of my comment was that people on both sides seem to be rushing to the boiling point in quite a hurry. While what we discuss here is very important to each of us, aside from safety issues, none of it is truly a matter of life and death.

As to Dan, I've expressed no opinion either way.

Dan can be direct, but he seems like a nice guy in general. I know on several occasions he has helped me with questions that I have had, and has sent me several emails explaining his advice. Look if he was nasty at some point so what…nobody’s perfect.

I say “ Free Dirty Dan”!!!!!!!

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 03:50 PM (CDT)
 
Hi gys!

I want to start by saying that I really tend to agree withIskander and Bob k. The administrators of this board have done an outstanding job of providing us with an Internet forum where we can exchange news and ideas concerning our rather obsession-prone hobby. I have thanked them for that, both in public as well as in private.

The downside of this for the administrators, is that they get stuck with the task of dealing with issues like General Deportment. As I understand it, Dan isn't the first individual who may (Or may not!) have been asked to remove themselves from the board and if this is the case, he probably will not be the last.

Having posted on a number of number of other Internet bulletin boards, I have found that that most of the participants prove to be nice, reasonable, intelligent, polite people. Unfortunately, there are always a few who, once they have a computer and keyboard at their disposal, unleash the angry, arrogant or perhaps just immature aspects of their character. When that happens it's a drag for everyone else and the more happens the less real communication takes place.

Those of you know Dan personally, understand his sense of humor and communicational style in a way that the rest of us don't. You can tell when he's making a joke (Or not!) and can forgive a great deal of his ranting and raving as part of his "personal style". Others will ignore it based on their assessment of his "contributions to the hobby". Those of us who don't know him are much more likely to think that someone acting the way Dan does, is simply an arrogant jerk. If you think about it, those are both valid judgments based upon available information. Here on Stuka Stunt, we judge one another primarily on what we have to contribute and how we communicate it.

I think, in general, that Len's major requests are that we talk with one another in a civil manner, that we treat one another with a certain amount of respect and that we follow the other guidelines that he is set down for us.

I am absolutely certain that should Dan decide to operate within those guidelines he would be welcome here on the board, not only by Len but by those of us who found his communicational style less than acceptable.

Bigs

" What constitutes the dignity of a craft is that it creates a fellowship, that it binds men together and fashions for them a common language. For there is but one problem - the problem of human relations."

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 04:29 PM (CDT)
 
> ...should Dan decide to operate within those guidelines...

Yeah, and pigs might fly in formation.
It's hard to imagine he would care enough to bother changing anything.

I really must confess that I didn't start this post with the idea of getting people fired up. I knew that Dan was controversial but didn't think there were that many people that disliked him so much. I haven't always agreed with everything he said but learned to read between the lines. I also know what its like to have some of my replys deleted. I got a little over emotional on the recent events in Iraq and Len vaporized it. His right to do so. I didn't stop to think about this being a world wide forum and the fact that you don't know who all might be reading it.

Bill

I agree with the majority as regards this forum. It is, from what I have seen thus far, the best and most honest forum out there. It is administered well and has the most knowledgable Flyer/Builders that has been my privilege to read. That would have to include Mr. Dirty Dan. I am new here and do not really know the man as most of you do, but varity is the spice of life (sorry cliche) and It is my opinion that this forums' success is due in part to that. This is a bang up forum and I like it here...I feel like part of the hobby here and I am greatful that it is civil and administered very well. Power to SSW!! Just my humble opinion.

Dan is an acquired taste

All I can say about Dan is that he's a good natured guy who likes to razz people, not because he doesn't like them, but because he does.

Last year in Vancouver when I crashed Keith Varley's plane and I was pretty low..Dan not realizing that I splattered someone else' plane came over and offered me the use of his Oriental without any hesitation at all.

That pretty much sums him up for me.

I look forward to seeing him in Vancouver next weekeend where I will be steering clear of Keith's model

LAST EDITED ON Jul-22-04 AT 01:30 AM (CDT)
 
HEY!!!!

I think that the Island dude just said something rude!!!

Isnt there a rule around here about everyone using ENGLISH?

Hey, Mister Neumann.....!

Bigs

" What constitutes the dignity of a craft is that it creates a fellowship, that it binds men together and fashions for them a common language. For there is but one problem - the problem of human relations."

One thing that I think it's important to remember when contributing to this or any similar forum is that, even though it seems like we're just typing an e-mail, what we write can be read by literally anyone in the world who has access to a computer.
A personal attack posted here is in fact a very public declaration. I think anything we might say about another person should be considered very carefully before being posted in such a public place.
There are plenty of interesting model airplane topics about which we can have a lively conversation, argument, or debate, without need to stray into personal attacks.
I run a general CL forum over on Yahoo, and I've only ever had three rules about it, which I think are good guidelines for any CL model forum:
1. All posts must relate in some way to control-line model airplanes.
2. No personal attacks.
3. No obscenity.
It's worked pretty well so far.
--jt

...
>
>SoHawaii
>Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono

You do, and you'll clean it up!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly." -Terence

WARNING, WARNING!! More blah, blah, blah than even Ted Fancher and Doug Moon, working in concert, can generate. Just making up for lost time...

As Bill said (thanks!), I am brutally honest, do have opinions, and find a lot of humor in our hobby. These will continue to be characteristic of my interactions with one and all, no matter the forum.

I haven't bailed, at least not completely. And I didn't get the boot, although following seems to be more than a hint:

"No, it is not me that takes the marbles and goes home. It is Dan that takes his marbles and goes elsewhere.”

Leonard Neumann

Generally I log in, check for messages on the private service, log out, become a lurker, quickly scan for--and read--threads of interest, take my marbles and go elsewhere.

Truly I appreciate all contributions to this thread--particularly that of Will Reeb who so succinctly and accurately summed up my approaches toward others--although I have very reluctantly had to conclude sucking up to Iskandar is no longer a worthwhile pursuit. (Insert "Reading Comprehension is not my Strong Suit" smiley-face icon here.)

With a general thanks to both friends and critics, there are comments which deserve rebuttal and I will take them in order posted.

Bob Kruger went to great lengths in explaining the obvious, and I wish to note in the strongest terms possible that **never** have I claimed the "right to free speech" in any of my complaints toward operation of SSW. I view this board as being a lot like a privately-owned club, *of course* owner of a private club, private home, or a web site has the right--indeed the obligation--to set the rules.

I have always passively supported Len in this respect, in fact in the past have actively supported him when it came to outright cranks or that Eugene dude when he thoroughly berated Len over some supposed problems with a SSW motor.

I do have a problem with “rules” being tossed out willy-nilly:

“I do need to read the threads on this forum, however. But I don't have to listen to this 20 FP rant.” Len.

I also have to wonder, when the idea seems to be gathering a bunch of like-minded people together via the internet to discuss subjects of interest, why the most popular threads are the most likely to be shut down, in some (limited) cases deleted entirely.

Maybe success has overwhelmed SSW. It's an odd parallel, but in a free market one can manipulate number of goods or services sold by decreasing or increasing price. Latter tactic is a bit unusual although hardly unknown; I have raised prices to decrease demand several times. While I do not think Len is consciously doing something similar, it must be noted that elimination of popular topics (evidently) reduces his work load while decreasing value of this forum to an unknown number of people like myself.

To me, this flies in the face of all logic: Here we are, what's popular, what do y'all want to talk about? The BOM rule? Can't discuss that one, no matter how popular, no matter how many want to throw out their opinions, no matter how directly it affects the hobby in question, CL Stunt.

This hit a new low when Rush--hardly known for abusive comments even if much of his humor is so obtuse as to be nearly indecipherable--had a two-liner deleted, my short follow-on comment also deleted. This act bordered on the bizarre, neither of us violated any SSW "rules," nor did we say anything which does not quite accurately reflect comments made a great many times over the years. There was even some humor involved...

A separate, but related, item which concerns me, or at least gives me pause, is the fact that while Len makes a significant contribution to today's hobby scene, when looked at in the starkest terms he supplies us with a blue screen which is completely blank save for some cute graphics.

It is only when extroverted folk like myself freely make contributions (note proper use of the word) to what amounts to a blank sheet of paper that any of us--including Len, interestingly enough--has anything worth visiting more than once.

So we depend upon Len for the forum. And he depends greatly upon us to entertain ourselves and others. When our contributions are summarily and unilaterally tossed to the ether--in at least one case this being a 100 posts-plus thread--of course there is a negative reaction to our efforts and contributions being treated in such a cavalier manner.

To illustrate further, it is pretty obvious there are a lot more lurkers than contributors on this site. If all of us were to become lurkers, for whatever reason, elimination of favorite topics being only one, what would happen to the value of this site?

So why is it so artificially and capriciously limited, via "rules" unpublished and "known" only to those with months of experience? Reference: Sean McEntee's innocent request for BOM-related information. Many were set on "kill," beat him up. I was the first to accurately read his post and to answer his question.

In May/June issue of Stunt News, Brett had a fabulous dissertation on BOM rule. Ideally this would have served as the basis for an exceedingly popular, insightful discussion on this site. I personally looked forward to learning something new via a discussion that never took place, just as I had learned from all previous discussions.

Instead, nothing. In this admittedly narrowly defined topic we are not allowed to participate on a board which cannot exist without input from interested parties. Strange, very strange...

In current July/August Stunt News my Bad Boy Stunt article dealing with a very special engine with something less than .21c.i. displacement, slightly more than .19c.i. displacement, (finally) appeared. Topic was even mentioned in Brett's District 10 column and Bill Jacklin's column, Bill copied Brett's tune-up instructions into a fourth mention/article. I well understand that some of you are tired of hearing about this particular engine, and I have been singled out as not being allowed to mention it directly at all via an unpublished, shoot-from-the-hip rule of some sort.

While none of this SN-related commentary on the PF02 was coordinated, or at least I was not consulted, in part this appears to be a reaction to topic having essentially been shut down on SSW. Taking our marbles elsewhere, if you will, just as John Ashford has done with his upcoming column in next SN dealing with, gasp!, BOM issue.

Beat to death or not, a lot of you would do well to pay very close attention to what some of us are saying. For example, in Maverick's recent thread, Brett says, "I would add that the power delivery was exactly as I wanted it - lots and lots, but not much variation. This is very similar to a 40/46VF **and 20FP.** It was moderately fast in the maneuvers if you timed it, but since it was so just the perfect delivery, it did not seem rushed at any time.” *Emphasis added by Dirt.*

The man picks out only three two-strokes as examples of superb power delivery from all the engines with which he is familiar. Just as with numerous comments on this forum, this is what we call a ***Really, Really Big Hint,*** and the naysayers would be well advised to gain some flying experience with unmentionable engine prior to making any more unsubstantiated claims.

And yet to date not a single SSW-based comment concerning my article, this on a site dedicated to CL Stunt, improving state of the art of same. Again, there is something very wrong here. If nothing else, a measure of SSW success ought be a reflection of what is going on out there in Stunt Land. When it does not, why not?

Iskandar has had his Dirty Dan Fan Club membership revoked. With extreme prejudice.

He is correct in that I sent three messages. I have had less than stellar results with private message service, probably my fault, have little faith in internet-based communications, did not receive acknowledgment my missive received, sent it again. And again. His derisive comments were my first clue he had received the material.

Iskandar did get me sideways (again, congratulations to him) with a snide comment meant to indicate I am less than an open-minded individual. Having grown weary of his cheap shots--particularly those with absolutely no merit--I detailed some views held strongly to less than a year ago, all of them blown away when fiddling with the engines I can't talk about, impetus being long-winded demonstration that he couldn't be more wrong in assuming I am a closed-minded person.

I did cite Len's position as being representative of a closed mind, at least with one *narrowly defined and specific* topic. But--and it's a **big but**--I used a statement made by Len, on this site, to make my point. And while I did not use the word "transference," instead preferring "projection," latter is a description I used openly on this forum.

There was no behind-the-scenes campaign. I don't do those. I have **never** done those. Even when Peabody was actually doing this to me, I stayed above the fray, never sank to his level. There is nothing, **as in nothing,** in my very long "note" to Iskandar that I would not say openly to Len, have not already said to Len, either via this forum or in person.

Thanks, Isky. This act has pretty much shown me your true character. I readily accept your commitment: "And that's the last I'm going to say about this subject, either here or backchannel."

As long as our close and longstanding friendship (satire icon here) has ended, there is only one item left hanging. Quite a long time ago I promised to send the Bad Boy Stunt articles dealing with four-strokes to you. Never did, my failing completely. Now that I know of a reliable channel, would you like me to follow through on my promise? You may respond via private message service so as not to publicly violate above statement.

To Len: I will gladly send to you unaltered text of my message to Iskandar. I'll even post it here, but only given your permission.

(Late note: I have already sent you document in question; you decide on Iskandar's veracity. Or lack thereof.)

All of that having been said, it is true that lately I have had too much time on my hands, this leading to participation in discussions/threads in which I have no real interest. I will no longer be doing this as there is enough variety on this forum, other forums to visit, to dismiss out of hand threads which are not of compelling interest.

Further, I will admit to having made a ****HUGE**** mistake in bringing discussion of what I continue to think of as an excellent idea, that same engine with something less than .21c.i. displacement, slightly more than .19c.i. displacement. I had no idea this would devolve into such a negative, and regret this all the more as it can be assumed some unknown number of people ended up not taking the information seriously, this to their loss.

Here's what happened: Current BBS column was written for publication in March/April 2004 Stunt News. While I rarely have time-sensitive material, this was an exception to the rule in that material would ideally appear well before flying season, thus maximum number of interested people would benefit.

Due to basic stupidity on my part, not recognizing a failing drive on the 'puter, Tom received only gibberish. I was unable to recover. Deadline came for May/June issue. Ditto. Preston suggested a solution. He was right. But still it was too late.

Meanwhile, information regarded as being timely was now four months out from desired publication date. Not good, not good at all.

So it was that in order to disseminate said information, even if the audience is much smaller than SN readership, I initiated three or four threads on this forum. As a bonus there seemed opportunity to further vet the article(s) by discussing topic on this forum.

Yep, ended up in a big fur ball, didn't it? **And I was every bit as much of a problem as anyone else.** My points of view were, and still are, easily defensible. But, and again it's a big but, the delivery, and I am talking about my own delivery, went lower and lower until it pretty much sucked.

Still, I learned a HUGE lesson, will never repeat mistake of taking material best suited to publication in Stunt News to SSW. It's not this particular forum which is the problem, although Len must admit to some culpability--as I have and do--to turning the topic into a shouting match. Instead, it is the suitability of each medium, what I wrote being eminently suited to the printed page, wholly inappropriate for an interactive forum.

Finally, to Len: It is most unfortunate that you and I, two very stubborn and highly opinionated people, butted heads. I have not changed my mind on the more salient issues, do not imagine your mind has been changed.

It was still an unfortunate series of circumstances and I deeply regret the distractions which took away from our mutual focus, like-minded friends flying pretty airplanes doing neat tricks in the sky.

I would like to submit, however, that the free market is a powerful force. While I have not, would not, will not, do anything to harm SSW, I intend to focus my involvement more to reading and learning (taking more, contributing less would be a harsh, but true, way to put it) versus putting forth my points of view on as many topics as dealt with in the recent past. All while looking for a site which better meets my needs, something the free market may indeed furnish in the future.

It is my sincere hope that such proves to be a New-and-Improved SSW, one which deals with *all* subjects related to CL Stunt, no exceptions whatsoever, popularity of each determined by participants not overarching paternalism. But if not, no regrets, no further unsolicited input from this quarter...

To my friends and critics, some being both,

My best to all,

Dan

P.S. "My best to all," does not include Iskandar. Insert closed fist, thumb protruding from between first and second finger, series of icons.

P.P.S. Oh, that's just too cheap, even if funny. My best to Iskandar. May you live well and prosper.

Dan........ BRAVO!!

Joe

ps I canceled our plane tickets to the DNC in Boston next week, after Jane and Meryl and Woopie all said we would have to shave before giving our keynote speeches. See you at Ralph N's shindig.

>
>Bob Kruger went to great lengths in explaining the obvious,
>and I wish to note in the strongest terms possible that
>**never** have I claimed the "right to free speech" in any
>of my complaints toward operation of SSW. I view this board
>as being a lot like a privately-owned club, *of course*
>owner of a private club, private home, or a web site has the
>right--indeed the obligation--to set the rules.

Dan;

Glad to see you are back.

Delighted that it is "obvious." That should eliminate situations in the future if and when our host say "enough" and closes a thread.

Speaking of threads that should be closed, its time to close this one, as no additional good will come of it.

V/r

LOL!!

I don't think there are that many people that dislike him.
Chris...