"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim
obviously has some issue with her
callsign. Without saying why, he refuses
to use her callsign as he has done with
everyone else on his list. That callsign
was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has
an issue with that, he should take it up
with the FCC. Regardless, until the
FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
legitimate and should be treated as
such by all within the Ham radio
community - just as any ham operator,
including Jim, would expect his or her
own callsign to be treated.


Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and
politically correct.


No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
correctness by those people.


Ahem...at least he hasn't said he's going to "pray for you" yet. I love it
when someone says that to me with that certain "tone of voice" LOL


I'm certain that Jim has an issue with
Kim's call. Quite a number of us have
issues with Kim's call. Even Riley
Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's
call. For you to attempt the equation
of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call
with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.


Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the
other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign
to
Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot
about
their own character.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WAIT...oh, I was going to change this to show that it is posted from Kim
Walker but, oh my gosh look! It says "From Kim Walker" in the list and,
gosh, let me check now--yep, that pesky little Header has my Yahoo email
address *just like always* and, why just look at that, it even has the same
routing information as always.

It's obvious up front, surely, to anyone not *searching* for the sake of
disagreement and dislike, that this is from anyone but Jim/N2EY. And, it's
obvious, since *I posted to him once and asked him to include my callsign,*
that I am simply adding my callsign to the list. And, of course it's
obvious, right up front from the "From" line, then by further investigation
(if some stupido really needed to go further) into the Header, that this was
sent by someone other than Jim/N2EY.

So, I guess I will no longer have to even bother with those who can't see
the obvious.

Oh, yeah: Kim W5TIT

writes:

Mike, how in the

[expletive deleted]

is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it?

The problem is that you *didn't* alter the number
of symbols at the beginning of the line, so it
looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's
no in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above.

The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without
changing the symbols is misattribution and one of the very few
things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers
simply tell what the number of symbols means.

Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd
want to know.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?


Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:



Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.


How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

Is that the Grumpy old Man list?


Who could be grumpy in their presence?

And at the very top of the list: Jan Smithers, best known as "Bailey Quarters"
(turns 55 this year).


One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how Jan got so little
attention compared to Loni Anderson, who has to be one of the scariest
wimmin this lad has ever seen.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:
Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

You could always past it as a quote.


That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him. Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I'm not on any Dave Heil bandwagon. That I agree with him in this case
means only that I agree with him in this case.


For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a
post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
opinion that it can be done.

I would have submitted the post as a quote, and perhaps with a "ahem -
My callsign is W5TIT in case you forgot, Jim!" You would have made your
point most eloquently in that case.


And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my
callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to
display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

Who's angry? Jim has the right to be skittish about your callsign. You
have the right to call him on it. I'm not going to presume to tell you
how to make your posts, but I'll tell you how I would have reacted in
the same circumstances.


However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars in
some display of dislike for me--then go for it.

Who dislikes you? Not me.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?



Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).

If Kim is uncomfortable with Kim's callsign, that is within his rights.
Standard email would have left no doubts about the message. Message
quoted, and "this" should be changed.

I don't know about everyone's mailreaders, but on the ones I used, it
takes an extra effort to reply to a message and take the quotes out.

I noticed it immediately. What is the point of doing it otherwise?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:

Under no circumstances could Kim remind me of the "Church Lady". As to
the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?


WEEK??? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
writes:


Mike, how in the


[expletive deleted]


is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it?


The problem is that you *didn't* alter the number
of symbols at the beginning of the line, so it
looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's
no in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above.


The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.


Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without
changing the symbols is misattribution and one of the very few
things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers
simply tell what the number of symbols means.

Kind of like:

In Unix style commenting, a "" is placed before each line of quoted
text. Add your new text below the relevant quote.

from http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/netiquette.html


Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd
want to know.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?



Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception
of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign
in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request
which
should have been unnecessary).

If Kim is uncomfortable with Kim's callsign, that is within his rights.
Standard email would have left no doubts about the message. Message
quoted, and "this" should be changed.


Uh, OK. The J and K keys are right next to each other... ;)

Kim W5TIT