RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 11th 04, 03:56 PM

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Leo
writes:

Jim,

Reply follows:

On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , "Kim" writes:

Jim is disrespectful to me to make it look like I am not an amateur
when he chooses not to associate me as an amateur when I've made a
conscious decision to participate in something he's providing for
fun.

There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected
that's your perception, not my intent.

But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse
to acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
forum.

I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?

Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.

Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my
rights were violated.

That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as well!

I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?

See above.

Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own personal
morals and prejudices upon others?

Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the
same to me.

Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my
posts?

Of course not -

But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if
I write a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're
saying I do *not* have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".

oh wait - I just did....

but that does not confer upon you the right to remove or alter her
personal data without her permission!

"personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her
callsign. In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been
only one Kim. There have been at least 4 Jims, though.
.
For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....

For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having
to write

certain things.

Did anyone here ask you
to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
offensive?
Certainly not.

I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone
else can post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I
have to repeat it.

What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?

Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".

That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote. No
one who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this is true

If you aren't
comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?

Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.

Wouldn't
that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!

There's nothing illegal about it.

Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the
original list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even
*should* not do the list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to
censor *me*.

If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included,
that's their right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote
something I did not.

See above.

Where?

I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the
attributes of the original message simply to include my callsign in
the list.

Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!

So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?

Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
Hers, and yours.

I do not see that I have done anything wrong.

If you publish a list of hams by callsign, and replace one of them with a
name, there will be very few people indeed who don't perceive this as a
deliberate slight.

At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the
symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I
chalked that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.

Then, you peeled off *all* the symbols, including the one by my
signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.

Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was
their right to do it?

No - but that isn't the issue here.

Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
and judgements.

Your obvious discomfort with her
call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
consider it improper.

Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?

Sure. Just don't expect to get away without retaliation.

Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
it angers others.

She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
to publicize it here. But you deny my right.

I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other
person has a problem with that.

If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
you do not give others.

Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?

Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my
posts. I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".

If her name was the only one there, I would agree

Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
aren't you?

Nope. I'm editing it out.

"Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all.
I have not
done that, and would not if I could.

Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by her fellow
amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?

I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own posts
is appropriate behavior.

Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?

Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility
for what I post.

Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as
"wrong" is really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals
and prejudices upon me.

Ahem...

That doesn't sound like
you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.

I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
inappropriate for the ARS.

That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.

Says who?

FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they generate
enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code tests of
those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the treaty
requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize anyone when
a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.

Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say
the FCC is
wrong?

Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the
problems it has?

Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the
rules changed?

Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it
once on TV?

She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
sequentially. It
was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to
extinction" that exceeded 3000 posts.

But it is her call - issued to her for her use.

And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.

And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have
to use it here.

I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction
from the list.

Done. No problem.

If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately,
with no malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at
all.

I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
I do not post your callsign because I think you made an
inappropriate choice.

That is not up to you to decide, Jim.

Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns
are not appropriate?

Of course it is.

Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?

Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
callsigns, not just hers.

Why?

Because you treated her differently from everyone else. If you had listed
us all by name, that would have been the diplomatic thing to have done.

Do you not think that singling her out the way that you did was
disrespectful to her?

No.

It was, Jim.

Are you that sanctimonious?

No. I'm that honest.

ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with
four-letter suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.

Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
old four letter combination?

Yes.

I'd be surprised!

I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why
would you be surprised if they
issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a
certain word. All kinds of
words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by the
FCC too).

Even the vehicle
license plate guys have a handle on that one.....

Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.

The FCC could have refused to
issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
freely issue this suffix as well!

FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the
database, or better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the
suffixes immediately before and after are much more common.

Does not prove the point.

It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from
W5TIS or W5TIU

But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of
us is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things
involving amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are
probably things involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you.
So we arenot equal in every way but license class.

Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
to.

No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.

I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!

Is Kim equal to me in technical knowledge of ham radio? In historic
knowledge? In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew
equipment? At the risk of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.

As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued vanity
callsign, just like you!

Of course! And she does use it here.

But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not
have the right to refrain from doing so?

You may, of course, refrain from using it.

Gee, thanks. ;-)

But why do you feel that
you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have an
issue with it with the rest of the group?

Because they asked.

And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?

No - that's why I don't censor anyone.

(and, up here,

(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)

...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
call signs!

Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.

Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....

all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).

Were those calls sequentially issued?

You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether they
requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.

It makes a difference.

I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that
your choice of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to
the amateur radio service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC
would not have issued it sequentially.

Why not?

Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC
will, however, issue them if requested through the vanity program.

Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do that?

-Because they don't care
-Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the system
-Because they don't want the complaints from those who want such calls
-Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few resources.

They have total authority over those calls - surely they ccontrol them
better than that?

Nope.

In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of
such callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".

It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC
statement to the contrary.

I refer you to the Callbook and databases.

Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
exempt from sequential issue?

Their actions are enough to prove the point.

In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.

In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an
opinion?

Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.

You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?

The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do,
or in the best interests of all concerned.

Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is
in the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
here!

Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be
done by othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are
deciding what is "right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an
unavoidable consequence of having an opinion. The only other option is
to never express any opinions at all.

For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur
license should be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on
the issue should take precedence over what others think and want.
They're saying that the FCC's current rules are incorrect and need to
change.

And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the
code test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and
to try to get their
will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those
who disagree have rights, too.

And that's the way it should be. YMMV

I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.

See above about the tests.

??

Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
clearer then!

What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I
*must not* oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are
permitted by law.

Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?

Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:

1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
equal playing field and singling out no one.

2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let someone
else pick it up should they so choose.

By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to
impose *your* personal standards on *me*

I say there's a third option:

3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.

It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
or cannot deal, with something about them.

I have not ostracized Kim.

What effect to you think that doing this would have on Kim?

Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.

Do you not see that your choice of actions would hurt her feelings?

What about *my* feelings?

Say, you weren't striking out at her because she offended you, were
you? Of course not!

That's right.

If Kim's
callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
entirely.

Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
with her about callsign choice.

Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
friends a heck of a lot better than that!

I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a
very select few.
"Acquaintance" would be more accurate.

What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by
determining how I can post here.

Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.

Not what I'm doing.

On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!

Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone
from posting anyhting?

Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
you did!

I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.

Intentional deletion of
her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.

I disagree.

Sorry to hear that!

Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS.
IMHO YMMV

And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a problem
with.

So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me
that I have to.

Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called
'access covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male
bias').

I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on
Usenet as a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I
*must* post in a certain way. Why?

Please see the above comments.

I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word

[slang word deleted]

...because you personally have an issue with it! See?

Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's not a
birdwatcher.

I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but she
just might be!

Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:

1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny

2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of
reactions

She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.

Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.

I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.

Yes you did!

No, I did not.

Kim, I believe....

I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....

Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio
- as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.

This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused
to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting
names - and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
disrespectful.

And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?

There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double
standard.

Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
typing it, I'm sure I don't know.

I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.

Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!

Then why not choose another one?

Whatever it it, I hope you are able
to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.

I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to
force *me* to use it here on Usenet.

Or do they?

Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!

But you want to force your values on me.

Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone
*must* include that word or phrase in any replies?

Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....

I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!

Thanks for the validation, Leo!

Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections

(Breasts)

for dinner, and
they're my favourite!

Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.

73 de Jim, N2EY