"Mike Coslo" wrote


So let me get this straight. Newsgroup rules are cool to be broken?


Far as I know, there are no Newsgroup rules, only habits and widely accepted
conventions. Any one who takes exception to exceptions, is certain to
accumulate an exceptional quantity of exceptions. If you are starting a
collection, I have included three above.

With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Just do it till you need glasses, Hans.


I'm already wearing tri-focals.

dit dit, de Hans, K0HB

On 12 Jan 2004 09:15:19 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
Jim,

Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see,
or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim,

[callsign deleted]

Your opinion noted, Leo. However, after much consideration, I do not
consider my omission of Kim's callsign to be disrespectful. YMMV.

As stated before, it wasn't your omission of Kim's callsign that was
disrespectful, it was the context that it was done in - omitting hers,
but leaving everyone else's intact. Repeatedly.

As you are aware.


Your statements in defense of your conduct are based entirely upon
circular logic, rationalization, contradiction and denial - indicating
that you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your actions
towards a fellow ham here on the group.

Basically what you are saying is that I should accept Kim's callsign
as appropriate for the ARS, and use it here, because:

1) FCC issued it
2) She asked me to
3) *You* don't 'have a problem' with the callsign, and therefore *I*
shouldn't, either.

No - I said that Kim's callsign IS a valid one, accepted by the FCC
for use in the ARS. You can dislike it, revile it, be insulted by it
- whatever you choose to do. But, you must respect the fact that it
is a valid amateur callsign - because it is! Just like yours, issued
officially by the FCC.

Jim, you aren't the guy who gets to determine what is or is not
appropriate for the ARS. That role belongs to the regulatory
authorities. Whatever your problem is with this particular call, it
is between you and the FCC - not us! If they declare that it is
inappropriate, then it will be withdrawn. If not, it stays. Whatever
it is - it's their decision - not yours and mine!

As you are aware.


As I have stated before, no disrespect was intended. But I am not
going to use Kim's callsign in my posts, because I think it is
inappropriate for the IRS.

In your opinion, Jim - not necessarily the opinion of the FCC, or many
members of the ARS. However, no one is trying to say that you must
use Kim's callsign in your posts - the issue is with your intentional
exclusion of only her callsign from your list!

As you are aware.

You can use it in your posts all you want. So can Kim. I won't try to
impose my standards on others, even though they try to impose their
standards on me.

No one is attempting to impose standards upon you, Jim. The message
was (quite clearly) that it is inappropriate and disrespectful to omit
just this one callsign from the pool, while leaving all others intact.
As you well know. And as clearly stated in previous posts.

As you are aware.


[Kim a licensed radio amateur]

told you straight up that she felt disrespected by your actions.

I have felt disrespected by her action in choosing that callsign.
I told her that straight up a long time ago.

Not sure I understand why you would feel personally disrespected by
Kim's choice of callsign, Jim - I don't imagine that she did it to
offend you personally.

You are of course free to express your opinion regarding this issue,
however - but to do so in public isn't always a wise choice. Would
you walk up to someone in a crowded mall and tell her exactly what you
thought about their skitr being too short? Of course not - that would
be impolite. And not too smart, perhaps - she might smack you! :)

Some opinions are best kept to one's self :)


A simple apology to her would have been appropriate.

I apologize if my posts have upset anyone. That was not the intent.
But I will not compromise my standards on this to avoid hurting
someone's feelings.

The right thing to do.

In your opinion. Mine's different.

Compromising standards isn't the issue, Jim. As you are aware.

If you had changed your poll to list everyone by their first name,
would that have compromised your standards? Of course not. It would
have created a Level Playing Field, and caused little fuss at all.

It would have removed the opportunity for you to try and punish Kim
for her poor choice of callsign, though - say, you weren't trying to
do that, were you? Of course not - your standards are too high for
that......aren't they?


Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here
yourself - frankly, you should know better.

Where is the insult in not using a word or phrase I think is
inappropriate?

As stated above, and in previous posts - it is a situational thing.
For example, yelling "Hey, Dick!" to a friend sitting over at a bar is
quite appropriate. Yelling "Hey, Dick!" to some biker sitting at the
bar is not. Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is
everything!

As you are aware.


Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the
act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric.

I don't see it that way at all.

Do you believe that these
actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur
service?

Yes. You may disagree, but I will not describe that disagreement
as "prejudice", "censorship" or "self-serving rhetoric".

What part of this statement are you having trouble with, Jim?

Definitions (and specific usage within the thread):

Prejudice: "an opinion formed beforehand" (your opinion that the
callsign W5TIT is inappropriate to the ARS)

Censorship: "the supression of something considered objectionable"
(like the intentional omission of just one callsign in a list,
perhaps?)

Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem)


I suspect that few here join you in that belief.

Doesn't matter.

It certainly should!

Your quote below is quite appropriate. At times, Dr. King
held standards and beliefs that were not popular. His adherence to those
standards and beliefs was considered "insulting" by some. Should he have
listened to them, or followed his conscience?

Dr. King was a champion of equality and equal rights - a mission which
cost him his life. He was dedicated to ensuring that people were
treated equally, regardless of the "personal standards" of those who
felt that they were not entitled to equal treatment.

Do you treat everyone equally, Jim? Even when you have a strong bias
against some characteristic of theirs that you find objectionable? No
matter what?

I'd refrain from drawing parallels to Dr. King until you can state
that unequivocally. Without prejudice.


"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy."

Rev. Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

And at this 'time of challenge and controversy', I say that Kim's
callsign is inappropriate to the ARS, and I will not repeat it
in my posts. No insult is meant by this action. But it will not
change.

Once again, no one is forcing you to use the dreaded callsign in your
posts. Again, Jim, the issue is singling out one individual because
there is something that you don't like personally! As you well know.

One's principles and beliefs, however righteous and sacrosanct, do not
convey the right to treat others disrespectfully.

To return to the quotation from Dr. King - in this time of challenge
and controversy, someone might choose to admit that they was wrong in
singling out one individual due to personal opinion, and revise his
list to indicate equal respect for the status of all participants.
Someone else might choose to twist the words and concepts around ad
infinitum to justify their actions. Still another would take the moral
high ground, and justify their actions based on rigorous personal
standards and ideals.

Which of these represents the Right Thing To Do? I know.

So do you, Jim.


I don't use the term "friend" to describe Kim, because she reserves
that word for a very select group, and I respect that choice of hers.

But I will say that one of the characteristics of a true friend is
telling the truth as the true friend sees it, even if it is not
what someone wants to hear, and even if a person may get their
feelings hurt or feel insulted by that truth.

An excellent homily, Jim - but with a fatal flaw. True friends would
conduct this level of personal information interchange only in
private, and with compassion, sensitivity and dignity. A true friend
would not choose to do that in a public forum, would they, Jim?

As you well know.

And, as we are all quite well aware.


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

I thought I was seeing Hans with something other
than a gorilla thumping message.

I never thump my gorilla. My dad said I'd go blind if I did.

Quit the monkey business in public...

LHA / WMD

On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy
and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you. I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.
Bully-like behaviour, Jim? I wouldn't have thought it possible.

That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.


So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:


"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

73, Leo

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

I don't see anyone in that condition...

Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to
the ARS.

Do you think all possible callsigns are
appropriate, Dwight?

Beyond the law, I don't think it is my mission in life to decide what is
appropriate for others. If I have a problem with the laws (the callsigns
allowed by the FCC), then my fight is with the lawmakers (the FCC). Whatever
the case, I don't take it upon myself to engage in an ongoing campaign
against those who make choices different then my own. Kim is aware of my
opinion about her callsign (I wouldn't have chosen it myself). Beyond that,
the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. If I felt this is a real
problem, I'd take up the issue of callsigns with the FCC.

You very neatly avoided the question.

You have had no problem when others
have used insulting names rather than
callsigns to refer to me, (snip)

I've never seen anyone use insulting names to refer to you.

Then you must have killfiled Len Anderson and Brian Burke a long time ago.
Which is probably a very smart thing to do. ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Just do it till you need glasses, Hans.


I'm already wearing tri-focals.

dit dit, de Hans, K0HB

I find the progressive lenses much more comfortable and useful myself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.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


So in the end, knowing the Code at 20 or even 35 WPM really doesn't
guarantee good character.

Thanks for the lesson in ethics, Jim.

73, Brian

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

Just a mention before I take off for the office:


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

[inappropriate callsign deleted]

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy
and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.


Ummmmm, that's quite standard for this newsgroup.


I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.


Not at all. I didn't see that. Your angst was for the fact that someone
changed attributes in a post. For that, you are wrong; as I am. It doesn't
matter *why* the posts are getting changed; that part of the debate was mere
distraction. Fact still remains that you bitched at me for something you,
yourself, have been doing.


I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.


There's something good in everything...and I do mean everything. For each
and every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Most people take
that to mean good=good and bad=bad. It can also, and more often, mean
good=bad and bad=good.


And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.


Typical behavior for you. Although, the implication of you being a leg
man--and stating so in such a way as to imply something sexual about it,
also defeats your whole stance of removing inappropriate things from posts
you take part in. But, you can be contradictory--that's OK.


So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:


"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY


As I said, you've been changing my original posts for over a year now (by
deleting my callsign from them--by the way, that was just pointed out to me
by someone else a bit of time ago--I've been "watching" since) so if you
want to get offended, upset, etc., about changing posts then be upset at
yourself first. Whether by changing attributes or deleting things from
original posts--both a) are supposedly against standard conventions of
newsgroups/Usenet and, b) both could be strewn to be disrespectful,
deceitful, inappropriate, incorrect, and causation for a long debate. You
began the behavior before me, I trumped it.

As I said, you may not "feel" boxed. However, you have been just
uncharacteristic enough in several examples that I am quite sure you were,
in some way, caught up in being very defensive over something you did. I
remain with a feeling of debate victory...

However, there is something rather interesting about the thread the last few
days: it's obviously had Hans occupied.

Kim W-5-T-I-T

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

I've never seen anyone use insulting
names to refer to you.

Surely you jest Dwight!!


No, I'm not. Contrary to what some may think, I don't follow each of the
discussions here. I trash about half the threads without even a glance. A
good chunk of the remaining threads get trashed after I've read only one or
two messages to see if I'm at all interested. And, finally, of the remaining
threads, I certainly don't read all messages. The only name I've seen
recently relating to Jim is Len's "Rev. Jim," and I'd hardly call that a
great insult.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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