Leo wrote:

Dave, have a nice life and do try not to be too upset by

....the developing nuclear capabilities of North Korea? another
terrorist attack? Hilary Clinton?

I have a nice life, thanks.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:55:01 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Hoo boy indeed. Are you in disagreement with my statement?

Not at all. Just amazed that you are so adamant about it, Dave.

If you aren't in disagreement, why are you amazed that I'd state it?

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

Raisin or bran muffin? Bran.

There's a question for you along with the answer. No input on your part
is necessary.

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.

Oops - my error, Dave.

Do you want to answer the question? Please feel free to do so!

It seems that you already found an answer which pleases you.

Then when did you start calling him "Dave"? I think you're beginning to
get tangled in your own words. Maybe you'd like to take another look at
your post.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

"Vulgar" works for me. From the Random House College Dictionary:
"vulgar adj. 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding
or taste; unrefined; crude.

That's one meaning, Dave - here are all of 'em:

1. Crudely indecent.

2. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
3. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish. See Synonyms at common.
4. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious:
the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
5. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people;
vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
6. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.


I also like "tacky" and "tasteless". There have been a number of other
words used to describe it. You can add definitions 2,3 and 4 if you like. I'll go along with them.

Tacky and tasteless are indeed synonyms - vulgar can be different.
Might just mean 'common'. Or 'ostentatious'.

I've used all of those terms in describing Kim's choice of callsigns.
Others have used additional words to convey their feelings on the
matter.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

I have.

Sort of. They can be different concepts.

I've used a number of terms. I meant all of them.

Tasteless could mean 'inappropriate'.

It surely could.

Vulgar can too, or could mean 'objectionable'. Or something else. Not
all at the same time, though.

It surely could. Did you you believe that I meant something else,
especially after I provided you with a definition?

Which is it - inappropriate or objectionable? Or ostentatious - I
like that one best

"Inappropriate" and "objectionable" are both fine with me.


If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Smiley aside, you did suggest that I start another thread.

Yup - I sure did!

Then my comment about you stepping into something and attempting to
direct stands.

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!

In essence, "Leo", that is your point, that Jim should avoid hurting
Kim's feelings by not using her call, the call that he finds
objectionable.

Nope - my point is that omitting just one call in a list was not the
polite way to handle the situation, Dave. If one feels that strongly
about one "inappropriate' call, then leave 'em all out. Treats
everyone as equals, Dave.

Very touchy-feely and all-inclusive of you, "Leo". Let's all get
together and celebrate our diversity, shall we?

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.

Just tell us how you interpreted it and we'll proceed from there.

Rather obvious, isn't it Dave? Please advise where I went wrong.

Feel free to use this quotation from Kim from the Pool thread when you
reply: (helpful hint - she was writing with reference to the deletion
of her callsign in the Pool posting....)

"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."

Gee, I guess that she was referring to something else....

I see Kim indicating that her feelings were hurt; Her self-esteem took a
hit.

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

I use microphones, keyboards and keys on the air, "Leo". I don't don't
use any of them in my amateur radio operations to lessen the pleasure of
others.

OK, not on the air, then - just here, perhaps. Apparently, the medium
determines the standards of appropriate behaviour: no wires, good;
wires, bad.

I see.

No, you don't. The code says what it says. You are attempting a
stretch.
You're also attempting to use that code to state that it is improper for
me to voice disapproval over Kim's choice here or to ignore her on the
air because of that disapproval. You're attempting to use that code to
tell Jim that he should either use Kim's call or not use any calls. Is
that about it?

I'll probably never know, though - I have no desire to work you on the
air, as I find your attitude towards others inappropriate for Amateur
Radio

Now if you could only do something about the attitude of others...

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

Thousands? I think you vastly overestimate the readership of this
newsgroup--and this isn't "on the air", Leo. Usenet isn't amateur
radio.

This Usenet group is carried on thousands of servers all over the
world, Dave. And no, it isn't amateur radio - but I'll bet most of
the readers of this group are amateurs, or are at least interested in
the hobby!

BTW, part of it might be on the air, Dave - a great deal of telecom
backbone networks are carried by microwave or satellite links..

What call do you sign in those instances, "Leo"?

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

I don't know what the "Duh" signifies, "Leo". You seemed to have
problems understanding my lack of obligation to use Kim's vulgar
callsign. Nothing requires me to use it anywhere.

OK, don't use it then.

I didn't require your permission.

It's vulgar to you, perhaps.

No, I find it vulgar. There's no "perhaps" about it.

Not necessarily
to me. It's just a callsign, Dave. Worst case, it's about breasts. So
what - some of my best friends have breasts.

I'm sure that you've noted that I am not the only person posting her to
find Kim's choice of vanity calls objectionable.

And, duh means duh. Duh. Somewhat synonomous with "obviously...", but
a tad more condescending in common application.

But you seemed to voice disagreement with my statement earlier. Now
you've agreed. Was the "duh" intended for yourself?

Let's see. I don't approve of Kim's callsign here. I don't approve of
Kim's callsign on the air. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a
car license plate. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a cap. What
you'd like to do is take an item from Paul Segal's code, an item which
is very specific and change it to suit your argument. It can't be
done. It very clearly says "operates". Now I'm quite confident that
"operates" doesn't mean "operates heavy equipment", "operates a computer
connected to the internet", "operates a convenience store" or "operates
on a patient".

Say, Dave, you're beginning to sould a bit like Dr. Seuss there!

I would not, could not, on a cap,
I would not, could not, on RRAP,
I would not have it on a plate,
I would not 'cause I'd hate that plate!
I would not use it on the air,
I would not use it ANYWHERE!!!

I don't care if Katey Segal wrote the code, Dave - I interpret
"operates" in the context of my inference as "communicates to others",
Dave. It's part of the package.

That's silly, "Leo". Are you telepathic? Can you read the thoughts I'm
sending your way at this moment?

Or does it simply refer to the technical side of operating - that is,
it's OK to treat someone poorly on the air so long as you use
technical accuracy in operating your station? "Sure, I told that jerk
off big time on 40 last night, but my SWR was under 1.1, my intermod
was 60dB, and my signal was clean with no key clicks!"

I didn't write anything about telling Kim off on the air. Does your
interpretation make any sense to you?

And is it any different when you are at the office? "I gave that
moron in Accounting a piece of my mind - we weren't on the air, you
know!"

I dunno, "Leo". Is the moron in accounting even a ham? Did you lessen
his operating pleasure?

Or here, for that matter.

Has Kim's operating pleaure been lessened? Has yours?

You persist in calling my views inconsiderate. I don't agree. I've
considered. Now you're a "Leo"-come-lately so you've apparently not
been exposed to Kim's views on proper social behavior. If you like, you
can hit the Google archives and check them out. I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.

I see. I'm confused, though - are you saying that the callsign is
vulgar? Or the holder of the callsign? Please clarify.

Read some of Kim's view on what she views as proper social behavior and
decide for yourself. Interesting material will include Kim's idea of
proper behavior at a football game, cocktail party or when driving. You
might also find Kim's comments to W4NTI, K3LT, W0EX, "JJ" or me to be of
interest.

You are aware that there are a whole pile of vanity calls out there
which are much more explicit than this one - it must be challenging
screening them all out before deciding to talk to 'em on the air,
Dave. 'Cause they might mean something 'bad'. In many different
languages, too!

I'm aware that there are other objectionable vanity calls. None of
those individuals have made any posts here in the seven or eight years
I've been here.

Maybe you should hire an admin assistant for your shack!

Naw, most of my extra funds go to that engineer I keep on retainer.

Dave K8MN