In article , Leo
writes:
On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
Leo wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan 2004 09:15:19 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
Leo wrote in message
...
Jim,
Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see,
or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim,
[callsign deleted]
Your opinion noted, Leo. However, after much consideration, I do not
consider my omission of Kim's callsign to be disrespectful. YMMV.
As stated before, it wasn't your omission of Kim's callsign that was
disrespectful, it was the context that it was done in - omitting hers,
but leaving everyone else's intact. Repeatedly.
As you are aware.
I am aware that you preceive it that way. Are you aware that no disrespect
was intended?
No.
Your statements in defense of your conduct are based entirely upon
circular logic, rationalization, contradiction and denial - indicating
that you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your actions
towards a fellow ham here on the group.
Basically what you are saying is that I should accept Kim's callsign
as appropriate for the ARS, and use it here, because:
1) FCC issued it
2) She asked me to
3) *You* don't 'have a problem' with the callsign, and therefore *I*
shouldn't, either.
No - I said that Kim's callsign IS a valid one, accepted by the FCC
for use in the ARS.
It's a *legal* one. No one disputes that.
Thank you!
You can dislike it, revile it, be insulted by it
- whatever you choose to do. But, you must respect the fact that it
is a valid amateur callsign - because it is! Just like yours, issued
officially by the FCC.
I did not ask for this specific callsign. Kim asked for hers.
Jim, you aren't the guy who gets to determine what is or is not
appropriate for the ARS.
Not true!
We *all* have a say in what is and is not appropriate for the ARS. And that
includes me.
That wasn't the point - I said specifically that you are not the one
who gets to make that decision.
Oh, but the Amateur Formerly Known as Reverend Jim IS ham
radio, therefore he decides what is applicable and what is not.
[it's either that is be caught in a word blizzard of long, long, long
postings or a Sermon On The Antenna Mount]
That role belongs to the regulatory authorities.
And to all of us hams.
No - we can recommend and advise, but the regulatory authorities make
the decision. Not us.
He IS U.S. ham radio. He's said so hisself. :-)
Whatever your problem is with this particular call, it
is between you and the FCC - not us! If they declare that it is
inappropriate, then it will be withdrawn. If not, it stays. Whatever
it is - it's their decision - not yours and mine!
That's only true as far as the issuance of a callsign. Not its use.
Absolutely. But not the point.
The issue is between you and the FCC. They issued it - they can
recall it if it's "inappropriate".
He IS U.S. ham radio. Said so.
As you are aware.
As I have stated before, no disrespect was intended. But I am not
going to use Kim's callsign in my posts, because I think it is
inappropriate for the IRS.
In your opinion, Jim - not necessarily the opinion of the FCC, or many
members of the ARS.
I'm not telling them not to use Kim's callsign.
You are telling me I *must* use it.
Incorrect. Not at all.
That isn't the issue. I said omitting just one callsign from your
post was wrong. No one denies your right to not use it - but you
could have omitted all of them, to level the field. What standards
woul that have compromised, Jim?.
The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim sets the
standards. He does not make mistakes.
Not gonna happen.
However, no one is trying to say that you must
use Kim's callsign in your posts - the issue is with your intentional
exclusion of only her callsign from your list!
Which is the same as saying I *must* use it!
Nope - just omitting call one out of a group was wrong. Disrespectful,
in fact - or at least perceived that way. You could have left all of
the calls out - then it wouldn't be a problem, would it?
Cannot be!
As you are aware.
You can use it in your posts all you want. So can Kim. I won't try to
impose my standards on others, even though they try to impose their
standards on me.
No one is attempting to impose standards upon you, Jim.
Yes, they are.
Nope - not at all.
The message
was (quite clearly) that it is inappropriate and disrespectful to omit
just this one callsign from the pool, while leaving all others intact.
As you well know. And as clearly stated in previous posts.
As you are aware.
"inappropriate and disrespectful" by whose standards?
Answer: YOURS!
Not just mine - as you are aware.
[Kim a licensed radio amateur]
told you straight up that she felt disrespected by your actions.
I have felt disrespected by her action in choosing that callsign.
I told her that straight up a long time ago.
Not sure I understand why you would feel personally disrespected by
Kim's choice of callsign, Jim - I don't imagine that she did it to
offend you personally.
She didn't. But that was my perception. And to paraphrase Kim: 'that's the
perception that counts'
You are of course free to express your opinion regarding this issue,
however - but to do so in public isn't always a wise choice. Would
you walk up to someone in a crowded mall and tell her exactly what you
thought about their skitr being too short?
Depends on who it was.
Sidestepping the issue.
Not Him! :-)
But, no matter who she was, would you say it in front of a crowd of
people? Or discreetly?
Of course not - that would
be impolite. And not too smart, perhaps - she might smack you! 
What if it was my teenage daughter? (Not saying I do or do not have one).
Different scenario entirely. Parental control gives you the right to
do so.
But, would you say it in front of a crowd of people? Or discreetly?
Some opinions are best kept to one's self
And some are best expressed rather than repressed.
Not in a public forum, Jim.
A simple apology to her would have been appropriate.
I apologize if my posts have upset anyone. That was not the intent.
But I will not compromise my standards on this to avoid hurting
someone's feelings.
The right thing to do.
In your opinion. Mine's different.
Compromising standards isn't the issue, Jim. As you are aware.
No, it's *exactly* the issue. To use Kim's call here would compromise my
standards.
Nope - it is not the issue. The point was not that you refused to use
it - simply that you singled her out in a list of other calls.
Intentionally and repeatedly.
Under vows of ham priesthood He may not make use of [expletive
deleted] words.
No matter. He IS U.S. ham radio.
If you had changed your poll to list everyone by their first name,
would that have compromised your standards? Of course not. It would
have created a Level Playing Field, and caused little fuss at all.
It would have caused confusion because there are several people with
the same first name here.
It would have removed the opportunity for you to try and punish Kim
for her poor choice of callsign, though - say, you weren't trying to
do that, were you?
Nope.
Really? Didn't look that way. Say, didn't you agree with Kim that
"perception is everything"?
Of course not - your standards are too high for
that......aren't they?
Yep.
Of course!
Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here
yourself - frankly, you should know better.
Where is the insult in not using a word or phrase I think is
inappropriate?
As stated above, and in previous posts - it is a situational thing.
For example, yelling "Hey, Dick!" to a friend sitting over at a bar is
quite appropriate. Yelling "Hey, Dick!" to some biker sitting at the
bar is not.
What if that's the biker's name?
Sidestepping the issue. And potentially suicidal
Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is
everything!
As you are aware.
Yet yelling both phrases is *legal* - although not always
advisable or appropriate.
Sidestepping the issue.
And in the context of amateur radio callsigns, I think Kim's choice
of callsign is inadvisable and inappropriate.
Your own logic proves it.
Sidestepping the issue.
Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the
act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric.
I don't see it that way at all.
Do you believe that these
actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur
service?
Yes. You may disagree, but I will not describe that disagreement
as "prejudice", "censorship" or "self-serving rhetoric".
What part of this statement are you having trouble with, Jim?
The words ""prejudice", "censorship" and "self-serving rhetoric", for a
start.
They are inaccurate
Definitions (and specific usage within the thread):
Prejudice: "an opinion formed beforehand" (your opinion that the
callsign
[inappropriate callsign deleted]
is inappropriate to the ARS)
It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the
callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues.
Therefore, it's not prejudice.
I see. So it's not just the callsign that you find inappropriate, but
the owner and other issues?
Please elaborate!
Censorship: "the supression of something considered objectionable"
(like the intentional omission of just one callsign in a list,
perhaps?)
I use the word "inappropriate", not "objectionable". And I did not
"suppress" it - I just won't put it in a post of mine.
Do you not also find it objectionable? Or are you playing semantics
again?
Therefore, it's not censorship.
Disagree - see above!
Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem)
The phrase was "self-serving rhetoric", not just the word "rhetoric".
AHEM.
You mean it isn't? Seems to be!
I suspect that few here join you in that belief.
Doesn't matter.
It certainly should!
So you're saying the majority opinion should rule? What if
the majority says it's inappropriate?
Do they?
Your quote below is quite appropriate. At times, Dr. King
held standards and beliefs that were not popular. His adherence to those
standards and beliefs was considered "insulting" by some. Should he have
listened to them, or followed his conscience?
Dr. King was a champion of equality and equal rights - a mission which
cost him his life. He was dedicated to ensuring that people were
treated equally, regardless of the "personal standards" of those who
felt that they were not entitled to equal treatment.
Equal rights under law. Equal opportunities. Not equal results. Not
an abandonment of standards.
Actually, the upholding of standards...but this isn't about standards,
Jim. It's about singling someone out intentionally. And
disrespectfully.
Do you treat everyone equally, Jim?
I treat them appropriately. What is appropriate for an adult is not
appropriate for a child. To treat them equally could be very unsafe.
Avoiding the question.
Even when you have a strong bias
against some characteristic of theirs that you find objectionable? No
matter what?
The only bias I have is in my Southgate Type 7.
I'd refrain from drawing parallels to Dr. King until you can state
that unequivocally. Without prejudice.
I state without prejudice that I don't have the bias you accuse me of.
I have standards that I adhere to.
Your actions speak differently.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy."
Rev. Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
And at this 'time of challenge and controversy', I say that Kim's
callsign is inappropriate to the ARS, and I will not repeat it
in my posts. No insult is meant by this action. But it will not
change.
Once again, no one is forcing you to use the dreaded callsign in your
posts. Again, Jim, the issue is singling out one individual because
there is something that you don't like personally! As you well know.
One's principles and beliefs, however righteous and sacrosanct, do not
convey the right to treat others disrespectfully.
Some people said that when people organized marches and protests against
things that violated *their standards*, they were acting disrespectfully.
True enough. Not directly related to this one single solitary isssue
that we're discussing here, though, is it? Nope.
To return to the quotation from Dr. King - in this time of challenge
and controversy, someone might choose to admit that they was wrong in
singling out one individual due to personal opinion, and revise his
list to indicate equal respect for the status of all participants.
Someone else might choose to twist the words and concepts around ad
infinitum to justify their actions. Still another would take the moral
high ground, and justify their actions based on rigorous personal
standards and ideals.
Which of these represents the Right Thing To Do? I know.
And by saying you know, you are doing exactly what you describe.
A puzzling response, Jim - I'm an Option 1 kind of guy myself.
How about you? A bit 2, a little 3 maybe....
So do you, Jim.
I don't use the term "friend" to describe Kim, because she reserves
that word for a very select group, and I respect that choice of hers.
But I will say that one of the characteristics of a true friend is
telling the truth as the true friend sees it, even if it is not
what someone wants to hear, and even if a person may get their
feelings hurt or feel insulted by that truth.
An excellent homily, Jim - but with a fatal flaw. True friends would
conduct this level of personal information interchange only in
private, and with compassion, sensitivity and dignity. A true friend
would not choose to do that in a public forum, would they, Jim?
Some would. I did. So did Kim, and so have you. And while I respect
Kim's use of the word "friend", I would say that the honesty and openness
here - even in disagreement - are the actions of "true friends".
One last sidestep for the road, Jim? Honesty and openness isn't what
your actions were about, now were they?
Be honest. And do try to stick to the facts!
Must be an Arthur Murray dropout with all the side steps being
practiced.
He IS U.S. ham radio. One may not disagree with Him.
U.S. Amateur Extras do not make mistakes. They have Special
Dispensation for whatever they do.
LHA / WMD
|