![]() |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... [snip] 'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate, WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?! The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like I don't have a callsign? At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone thinks...UNTIL they come up like this... Kim W5TIT I pay attention to every single attribute and immediately noticed the difference in both posts. I elected not to get into the debate and kept my opinions to myself. However since you seem to think people ignore the attributes, I decided I must repond to dispel that notion. And as far as I'm concerned, deliberately making the attribute appear to be something other than it was happens to be wrong. Making errors in keeping attributes in long threads happens and is excusable. Choosing to make an attribute appear something else is not excusable. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message et... Kim W5TIT wrote: At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone thinks...UNTIL they come up like this... "And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point made well. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, as I replied to Kim's post, I noticed it but chose to stay out of the fight that I knew was almost certain to come. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: (snip) But you have no negative comments for the person who does it. Negative comments had already been posted by others. I don't kick people when they're already laying on the ground from the blows of others. DWIGHT!? (Grin) Puhleeze don't ever think I am "laying on the ground" or even feel kicked! LOL!! Kim W5TIT OH--are you going to get all upset because I snipped the rest of the original exchange below this point? |
Jim,
Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see, or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim, W5TIT. 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. W5TIT told you straight up that she felt disrespected by your actions. A simple apology to her would have been appropriate. The right thing to do. Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here yourself - frankly, you should know better. Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric. Do you believe that these actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur service? I suspect that few here join you in that belief. "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." Martin Luther King, Jr. 73, Leo On 11 Jan 2004 13:54:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: 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. 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. 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? 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". 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? Do you not think that singling her out the way that you did was disrespectful to her? No. 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 "equa 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 are not 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 for dinner, and they're my favourite! :) Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... 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.... GASP! Is that sarcasm from you, Jim?! No way! 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. . (original attributed "period" left above). And, Jim, by the same token "everyone here" (a very general statement I might add--coming from you) knows you disagree with my callsign and "everyone here" knows that you have generally refrained from repeating it in a post. "Everyone here" knows that. But "no one there" may know that when the post is encountered through a search, casual observation, new folks, whatever. ---- these two attributes inserted to "lock in" the attribution (I do that all the time, nearly every post) 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. My perception says you *did* change the meaning of something I submitted (i.e., wrote). I intend for anyone, *anyone* looking at that list to see the same, the *exact same* thing in each and everyone's submission. No else had to ask you to include their callsign: you made the conscious decision to "just" insert everyone's callsign--*but mine.* Therefore, there is an implied "difference" to a casual observer. I do not wish my submission to be any different from anyone else's, as the difference could mean to be taken as negative or positive--and whatever impression it makes is not important to me. I don't want there to *be any difference* between my submission, oh: *as an amateur radio operator*, as any other amateur radio operator. If Len Anderson, for example, submitted his prediction of a date that CW testing will be removed from the amateur licensing process, a) would you insert his submission, b) don't you find his whole general nature abhorrent and would you insert his submission anyway and, c) would you insert his first and last name, just first name, etc? --- these attributes inserted 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. You cannot, on one hand, state that my callsign is a bad thing for the ARS--and you did state that--then, on the other hand, state that you have no prejudice. You *do* have prejudice and you demonstrate it every time you delete my callsign from a post. I've never (ahem, never) noticed if you keep my "signature" to my posts when you are replying to them, Jim. Do you? Or is my callsign just as offensive then as when I *intend* to include myself as an amateur radio in a list you have *generally* invited people to join? You have never stated "any offensive callsigns will not be listed." You have never stated, "Kim, I will include you in the list if you wish, but I will not include your callsign." You've actually never stated anything as to why you were refraining from submitting my prediction with my callsign *ATTRIBUTED* to it. You deliberately change the intention of my message by leaving my callsign out. *You*, Jim, did the *FIRST* deleting of attributions and, I might add, you have continued to do it for--what--over a year, about a year, somewhere around there. ---these attributes inserted 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. Of course not. You probably *don't* have any prejudice where your own decsions and actions have been made. But, by my perception, you are *JUST AS WRONG* to take away--or leave out--*ATTRIBUTION TO MY CALLSIGN* as I am to take away--or leave out--attribution characters in an newsgroup post. I daresay, though, your deletion is far more offensive than mine. The basis, meaning, and original message and intent of that message was in no way harmed or changed when I added my callsign to the list. None. Except, perhaps, that it then could have looked like you had (God forbid) typed my callsign. Your deletion--or leaving out, in this case--deliberately makes it look like I have no callsign. ---these attributes inserted 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. I agree. That isn't the issue for me, either. I think the real issue is exhibiting a form of respect for another individual who has earned the right to have a callsign attributed to her--*WHETHER OR NOT* you agree with the callsign. The one thing that Larry Roll has never, ever done--to his credit arrrghhhh, yes I said that--is "strip" me of my callsign. You have, Jim, and your actions are wrong. They are not only wrong, they are meanspirited and, to me, hateful. ---this attribute inserted 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? No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign. Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join, yet you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone else. ---this attribute inserted 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. ---this attribute inserted You do not have the right to list me "differently" than any other amateur radio operator. You have the right to refrain from having my callsign in a post, I could agree on that. But NOT a list. 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". Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts, aren't you? Nope. I'm editing it out. Worse. To censor would be to refrain from REPOSTING any submissions wherein I had added my prediction. That would have been far more respectable. My response would have been to ask you why you were not including me; you would have explained, and I would have respected--fully--your decision to act on a belief you have in a respectable manner. I do not respect your deliberate act to deny me listed as an amateur radio operator in a list of other amateur radio operators. "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. Then, you would not be able to respond to any of my *OTHER POSTS*, Jim. Because each time you respond to a post from and *do not* remove my callsign from my original post, then you are "proliferating" my callsign--even more so, I might add, than when it would be in this thread, probably. This thread has only been this active because of this debate that is going on. I haven't checked, but do you deleted my callsign from replies to posts from me? You'd be leaving behind my name so people would still know someone named Kim has originally submitted the post. At any rate, deleting my callsign from a post would follow along with your reasoning above; that to do so would minimize the exposure to my callsign. And, I daresay, that to completely follow along with that reasoning and have it be valid and accepted as true and logical reasoning, then you would need to refrain from *any* post wherein my callsign is evidenced. ---these attributes inserted 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? ---this attribute inserted Well, I think Leo just said it. And, I agree. 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? You did not say that the FCC is wrong for issuing my callsign. You said my callsign is inappropriate for the ARS. It may be (and I wholeheartedly disagree with you), but it is not for you--as an individual and certainly as an amateur radio operator--to disassociate me from ham radio as an amateur radio operator by leaving off my callsign from something in which I have *intended* for it to be. ---this attribute inserted Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the problems it has? No. Not wrong at all. But, it would be wrong of you to delete a "name" someone goes by from a list of names in which people might be expressing their agreement or disagreement, simply because you disagree with the way it sounds or even that it might be risque. It would incorrect of you to delete or refuse to attribute their name to them for any reason. ---this attribute inserted Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the rules changed? Not at all. And, I'd imagine that those who are so driven, are actively involved by contacting the appropriate agencies and departments and by active debate to state their cause and purpose. However, again, it would be incorrect for someone to keep a name or callsign (in this case) from a list in which they intended their name or callsign to appear. ---this attribute inserted Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it once on TV? I could drone on, but hopefully the point has been made. 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. If I *had* used it regularly, once in a while, or every so often, on the air, would that have changed anything here? I think not, so don't bother using it. Regardless, it is my callsign and I thought it would be listed when I originally submitted my prediction. ---this attribute inserted And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have to use it here. Nope. You sure don't. But, it would be nice in the future if you caution that any amatuer radio operator, with whose callsign you disagree, who submits something with the idea that he/she will be listed just as everyone else, *will not* be treated in such a manner. ---these attributes inserted 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? For the reasons stated by me in this post, for many. ---these attributes inserted Do you not think that singling her out the way that you did was disrespectful to her? No. I do. And, it is my perception that counts--although it's quite obvious that others have at least some degree of concern in this area as well. ---these attributes inserted 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 do not. ---these attributes inserted 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). Why is my callsign such a shock? Forget any reason that someone might request it. I say that becasue, keep in mind that Michael (I think his name was) requested and had K2TIT because it was the closest he could come to commemorating the Tet Offensive. So, regardless of *why* someone might request it, why the shock that the FCC would issue it? The mere word "tit" or even the tit itself is not vulgar. Good heavens, if you think it is then I am the one who is shocked! The word is not intended to be used as a nickname on the amateur bands; Indeed, I have sharply offended people who have done that. The full callsign is all that is ever responded to, on the air anyway. And, mainly, and the thing *everyone* always likes to ignore is that, yes, the callsign was requested by me on a dare. HOWEVER, it was a dare *after* I made the verbal observation that if I were to ever request a *VANITY* callsign, it would certainly be associated with something of vanity--not simply my initials. As you will recall, the most important part of that story--and it is a true one--is that a) I had never desired to get a vanity call, b) was mentioning to my fellow hams [men] on the air that it was a pity they had no more creativity than to simply request their initials and, c) that if I were to request a callsign it would be related to my "vanity." Anyone who knew me (and the all did) personally knew exactly what I was inferring by that comment. Were I as famous as Dolly Parton, it would be for the same reason she is--minus that I am a performer (I am not). My unique callsign is unique because it is a woman's callsign who knows that others perceive first in me, my tits. My intellect, beauty, wit, charm, rogue behavior, honesty in dealing with all humas and nature, and very, very opinionated nature all come secondary to the fact that, on initial gaze, I am a large titted woman. And, my callsign uniquely says, "get the hell over it, there's a person here to be reckoned with." If anyone does not like the way I *like* and *prefer* to relay that message, then tough titties (and they are not). If anyone else (and here's your argument coming back on ya) *perceives* my callsign to be vulgar, that is *their* perception. It is not my intention. If anyone else becomes deragotory with my callsign, as Larry, Dick, Dave, Waddles/ULX, and others have done in this newsgroup; I daresay your problem is with them for they are the ones acting in a vulgar nature. ---these attributes inserted 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 Or, K2TIT ---these attributes inserted But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us is beter 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 are not 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, you do not have the right to deliberately disassociate my callsign from me in a situation where I am representing myself as a ham radio operator among other ham radio operators with like actions. We are all participating in the same poll, "The Pool." We are all submitting our ideas, and every amateur radio operator--but me--has had their submission listed with association to their callsign. ---attributes inserted 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. Sometimes, censorship is quite appropriate. I think censorship of my submission would have been more appropriate, and respectful, than to add my "name" to the list with a submission of other amateur radio operators where their callsigns are listed. (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. ---attribute inserted To *you*, Jim and some others. Not to me, not Leo, not to some others. That someone gets, or even requests--doesn't matter--a callsign, it behooves you as a fellow amateur to respect that person as an amateur radio operator unless and until the licensing agency decides they cannot be an amateur radio operator any more. Note I did not say you have to respect that person as a person. I have absolutely no respect in any way for Larry Roll, Dave Heil, Waddles/ULX, and quite a few others actually. In fact I regard them with pure disdain. However, they are amateur radio operators and no one outside the FCC as the granting authority, can take that away from them. And, as fellow amateur radio operators, they deserve my respect. *If* (and that is a big if) I ever had to encounter them on the air, I would regard them and treat them with the same respect that I have for every other amateur radio operator. Even here in this area, when we had two proven fake Navy SEAL amateurs (proven by the organization that investigates that kind of stuff), and I was the only one who took them on as idiots, I never disrespected them on the air with rude remarks or insulting behavior. They would come on the air and call me names, try to scare me, deliberately violate nearly every R&R there is regarding transmission, but I never did the same to them. I refrained from communicating with them and would not respond to their childish, impish behavior. One day, the last transmission ever made on the air to either of them, I reminded one that the frequency was mine--which is proper operating practice and still gives them the *appearance* of respect as an amateur. 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. I feel it is becuase there may be a thought in their mind that someone might be embarrassed to have a callsign like that--and that is very nice of them to carry out issuing the call as one that might cause embarrassment to someone. They do care. Even though callsigns are issued by computer, it's obvious someone looks at them, because there are some set aside, as you say. I think the callsigns like mine are simply set aside to be requested, rather than sequentially issued, because they may cause embarrassment to someone--or maybe would even cause embarrassment to the FCC if someone asked, "why in the world would you have given me such a call?" ---attributes inserted 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". No, his very general statement--in specific reference to activities on the air, I might add--about my callsign and other behaviors in the ARS (related, as I said, to on the air activities) could move the ARS one step closer to extinction. I happen to totally disagree with him. There is something about Riley that Larry doesn't understand, by the way, Riley offered his comments *as a person* not as an authority of the FCC. Big difference. The FCC officially has no remark on my callsign other than, when asked, to state that they do not legislate or regulate callsigns (something to that affect anyway--it was a long time ago that we had communication together). It's also quite obvious that Riley is wrong. The ARS is still around, sitll healthy, and has even *gained* respect of important groups and agencies as a viable organization of people ready and capable to serve, if called upon to do so. The ARS is just fine and my callsign, nor the behaviors of idiots on the air, are moving it closer to extinction. There is not even a first step toward extinction of the ARS. ---attributes inserted 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? Why protest in an arena where the protest goes inactionable? Your protest to me will have no effect, whatsoever, in having me change my callsign. Even your refusal to list my callsign as an amateur radio operator with a submission, among other amateur radio operators with a submission, will have no positive effect on me changing my callsign. You should simply stick to the argument that you find my callsign inappropriate. That is the strongest (even at its weakest) argument you can offer. To try and submit your actions as a demonstrable protest falls way short. At least in my opinion. 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. Absolutely. I agree. Or, state that any amateur's callsign deemed as inappropriate by you will not be listed in your poll. ---attributes inserted 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. Which falls short of reasonable in any way. ---attributes inserted 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. You have ostracized me as a valid amateur radio operator by refusing to include my callsign with my submission. You have ostracized me by treating my submission as an amateur radio operator differently than you treated a submission by any other amateur radio operator. You have participated in ostracization (is that a word?) :) ---attributes inserted What effect to you think that doing this would have on Kim? Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign. Oh, Jim. Puhleeze! Surely, surely you know way better than that!!! ---attributes inserted Do you not see that your choice of actions would hurt her feelings? What about *my* feelings? My feelings are not hurt, by the way. I could actually care less about the issue of whether my callsign is on the list or not. However, the reason *I* am persuing this as a topic of interest will be revealed at the end of this post. snicker Not to minimize the input of my ideas: I am representing exacly how I think about the issue! I am just not hurt at all by the exclusion of my callsign from the list. ---attributes inserted 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. Thank you. And, I don't think you're a bad person, either; nor are you my enemy. ---attributes inserted 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. Exactly. Very few people are those whom I would consider "friends." Certainly not someone I only have interaction with over the computer or even amateur radio. ---attributes inserted 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? You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur radio operators in a list where you treated them differently (by listing them with a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of my callsign, me from being viewed as an amateur radio among other amateur radio operators in a list in which such omission could easily be taken out of context, I might add. ---attributes inserted 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 Oh, I thought you were going to say that my two, obvious, prominent reasons were my tits. Because those were the two obvious, prominent reasons =:o ---attribute inserted She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too. Uh, what does a picture of me, driving a car, from the shoulder area up, have to do with my tits? Don't tell me you could "tell" by that picture that I had big tits! Oh, no! It's worse than I thought! ; ) That'd be about like Larry being able to tell I'm fat (which I'm not) just by looking at that picture! ---attributes inserted 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 - Then your issue is with them. ---attributes inserted 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. That's a good "Kim" response! GRIN ---attributes inserted Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign! Then why not choose another one? ---attributes inserted Oh goodness!!! My callsign is so uniquely me how could I ever do that? 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. However, you did not let anyone know, up front when the poll was first issued, that any inappropriateness would be looked for and dealt with accordingly. I submitted a prediction and do have the right and, feel correctly, expectation that my prediction would be listed just like every other amateur radio operator's. My behavior on this newsgroup has always been blunt and honest. You could have even publicly said something to me about my callsign not be included and, as I would expect from you, asking if I would like not to particpate. That would have been so Jim/N2EY that I believe I have come to know. But, for some reason, your exhibited nature was not forthcoming here, and I don't know why--may not even be anything to it. But, I can see you posting a reply to my prediction that you would not be including my callsign--and would I like to withdraw. ---attributes inserted 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 for dinner, and they're my favourite! :) Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself. 73 de Jim, N2EY Now, for the real reason I decided to engage as I have the last couple of weeks. Remember, Jim, how I used to get so insulted when you would seem to "lead" someone into a corner they could not get out of? Well, this thread, and the lack of your treating my submission as any other amateur radio operator's became my path to doing the same thing to you. Not out of meanness, mind you, not at all. Out of pure fun. I feel you do lead, by way of artful argument by the way, people into corners they don't think they can get out of. This was my answer to that--because I really do feel I waited long enough (practically a year), acted often enough (giving you every opportunity to act as I would have thought you would act, and participated strictly as a submitter (I engaged in no comments until recently, and those only to request that you include my submission with my callsign). It is even uncharacteristic of me to get involved to this level (being listed among the debaters over the CW testing issue) with this topic. As I said, I would have thought of your nature that you would see my submission, and let me know that you would list it but without my callsign, and give me the opportunity to withdraw inclusion. Does anyone else agree that this would have been something one could reasonably have expected from Jim? Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really do have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you should have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list. But, my greater purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated feeling I used to have when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get out of. Maybe you don't feel boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at least it looked that way to me in this post! Kim W5TIT!!!!!!! |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... [snip] 'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate, WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?! The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like I don't have a callsign? At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone thinks...UNTIL they come up like this... Kim W5TIT I pay attention to every single attribute and immediately noticed the difference in both posts. I elected not to get into the debate and kept my opinions to myself. However since you seem to think people ignore the attributes, I decided I must repond to dispel that notion. And as far as I'm concerned, deliberately making the attribute appear to be something other than it was happens to be wrong. Making errors in keeping attributes in long threads happens and is excusable. Choosing to make an attribute appear something else is not excusable. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE You must have missed where I said, "as" paid attention to, Dee! I am sure some do as you do. I am sure many more do not. Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign. Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join, yet you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone else. You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur radio operators in a list where you treated them differently (by listing them with a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of my callsign, me from being viewed as an amateur radio among other amateur radio operators in a list in which such omission could easily be taken out of context, I might add. Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really do have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you should have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list. But, my greater purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated feeling I used to have when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get out of. Maybe you don't feel boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at least it looked that way to me in this post! Kim --- Jim has every right to not include your callsign in his messages. Jim --- Kim has every right to feel whatever she feels about that, and to post messages which make her "feel victorous" in return. In other words, you both have the right to make yourselves look like laughable self-righteous sanctimonious twits, and you both are certainly doing a superb job of that. All the high-sounding babble about usenet attribution rules is exactly that..... babble. Attribute that. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign. Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join, yet you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone else. You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur radio operators in a list where you treated them differently (by listing them with a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of my callsign, me from being viewed as an amateur radio among other amateur radio operators in a list in which such omission could easily be taken out of context, I might add. Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really do have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you should have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list. But, my greater purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated feeling I used to have when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get out of. Maybe you don't feel boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at least it looked that way to me in this post! Kim --- Jim has every right to not include your callsign in his messages. Jim --- Kim has every right to feel whatever she feels about that, and to post messages which make her "feel victorous" in return. In other words, you both have the right to make yourselves look like laughable self-righteous sanctimonious twits, and you both are certainly doing a superb job of that. Oh, wait. Oh, never mind. I thought I was seeing Hans with something other than a gorilla thumping message. My mistake. All the high-sounding babble about usenet attribution rules is exactly that..... babble. Attribute that. At least we can. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Negative comments had already been posted by others. I don't kick people when they're already laying on the ground from the blows of others. DWIGHT!? (Grin) Puhleeze don't ever think I am "laying on the ground" or even feel kicked! LOL!! Metaphorically speaking, Kim. OH--are you going to get all upset because I snipped the rest of the original exchange below this point? How dare you. ;-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com