Leo wrote in message . ..
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.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

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.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

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

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

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

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

...it might have been a Preview of Coming Attractions advertising
a new Sermon on the Antenna Mount by Rev. Jim. :-)

Hans is right. A bunch of sanctimonious Church Ladies trying to
manufacture disputes with their production lines all broken down.

What have your comments to do with elimination of morse testing in the
Amateur Radio Service (your only aim here)?

Dave K8MN

On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 09:15:19 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
Jim,

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

[callsign deleted]

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

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

As you are aware.

I am aware that you preceive it that way. Are you aware that no disrespect
was intended?

No.


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

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

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

No - I said that Kim's callsign IS a valid one, accepted by the FCC
for use in the ARS.

It's a *legal* one. No one disputes that.

Thank you!

You can dislike it, revile it, be insulted by it
- whatever you choose to do. But, you must respect the fact that it
is a valid amateur callsign - because it is! Just like yours, issued
officially by the FCC.

I did not ask for this specific callsign. Kim asked for hers.

Jim, you aren't the guy who gets to determine what is or is not
appropriate for the ARS.

Not true!

We *all* have a say in what is and is not appropriate for the ARS. And that
includes me.

That wasn't the point - I said specifically that you are not the one
who gets to make that decision.


That role belongs to the regulatory authorities.

And to all of us hams.

No - we can recommend and advise, but the regulatory authorities make
the decision. Not us.


Whatever your problem is with this particular call, it
is between you and the FCC - not us! If they declare that it is
inappropriate, then it will be withdrawn. If not, it stays. Whatever
it is - it's their decision - not yours and mine!

That's only true as far as the issuance of a callsign. Not its use.

Absolutely. But not the point.

The issue is between you and the FCC. They issued it - they can
recall it if it's "inappropriate".


As you are aware.

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

In your opinion, Jim - not necessarily the opinion of the FCC, or many
members of the ARS.

I'm not telling them not to use Kim's callsign.

You are telling me I *must* use it.

Incorrect. Not at all.

That isn't the issue. I said omitting just one callsign from your
post was wrong. No one denies your right to not use it - but you
could have omitted all of them, to level the field. What standards
woul that have compromised, Jim?.


Not gonna happen.


However, no one is trying to say that you must
use Kim's callsign in your posts - the issue is with your intentional
exclusion of only her callsign from your list!

Which is the same as saying I *must* use it!

Nope - just omitting call one out of a group was wrong. Disrespectful,
in fact - or at least perceived that way. You could have left all of
the calls out - then it wouldn't be a problem, would it?


As you are aware.

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

No one is attempting to impose standards upon you, Jim.

Yes, they are.

Nope - not at all.


The message
was (quite clearly) that it is inappropriate and disrespectful to omit
just this one callsign from the pool, while leaving all others intact.
As you well know. And as clearly stated in previous posts.

As you are aware.

"inappropriate and disrespectful" by whose standards?

Answer: YOURS!

Not just mine - as you are aware.


[Kim a licensed radio amateur]

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

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

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

She didn't. But that was my perception. And to paraphrase Kim: 'that's the
perception that counts'

You are of course free to express your opinion regarding this issue,
however - but to do so in public isn't always a wise choice. Would
you walk up to someone in a crowded mall and tell her exactly what you
thought about their skitr being too short?

Depends on who it was.

Sidestepping the issue.

But, no matter who she was, would you say it in front of a crowd of
people? Or discreetly?


Of course not - that would
be impolite. And not too smart, perhaps - she might smack you!

What if it was my teenage daughter? (Not saying I do or do not have one).

Different scenario entirely. Parental control gives you the right to
do so.

But, would you say it in front of a crowd of people? Or discreetly?


Some opinions are best kept to one's self

And some are best expressed rather than repressed.

Not in a public forum, Jim.


A simple apology to her would have been appropriate.

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

The right thing to do.

In your opinion. Mine's different.

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

No, it's *exactly* the issue. To use Kim's call here would compromise my
standards.

Nope - it is not the issue. The point was not that you refused to use
it - simply that you singled her out in a list of other calls.
Intentionally and repeatedly.


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

It would have caused confusion because there are several people with
the same first name here.

It would have removed the opportunity for you to try and punish Kim
for her poor choice of callsign, though - say, you weren't trying to
do that, were you?

Nope.


Really? Didn't look that way. Say, didn't you agree with Kim that
"perception is everything"?

Of course not - your standards are too high for
that......aren't they?

Yep.

Of course!


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

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

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

What if that's the biker's name?

Sidestepping the issue. And potentially suicidal


Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is
everything!


As you are aware.

Yet yelling both phrases is *legal* - although not always
advisable or appropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.


And in the context of amateur radio callsigns, I think Kim's choice
of callsign is inadvisable and inappropriate.

Your own logic proves it.

Sidestepping the issue.


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

I don't see it that way at all.

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

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

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

The words ""prejudice", "censorship" and "self-serving rhetoric", for a start.
They are inaccurate

Definitions (and specific usage within the thread):

Prejudice: "an opinion formed beforehand" (your opinion that the
callsign

[inappropriate callsign deleted]

is inappropriate to the ARS)

It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the
callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues.

Therefore, it's not prejudice.

I see. So it's not just the callsign that you find inappropriate, but
the owner and other issues?

Please elaborate!


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

I use the word "inappropriate", not "objectionable". And I did not
"suppress" it - I just won't put it in a post of mine.

Do you not also find it objectionable? Or are you playing semantics
again?


Therefore, it's not censorship.

Disagree - see above!


Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem)

The phrase was "self-serving rhetoric", not just the word "rhetoric".

AHEM.

You mean it isn't? Seems to be!

I suspect that few here join you in that belief.

Doesn't matter.

It certainly should!

So you're saying the majority opinion should rule? What if
the majority says it's inappropriate?

Do they?


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

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

Equal rights under law. Equal opportunities. Not equal results. Not
an abandonment of standards.

Actually, the upholding of standards...but this isn't about standards,
Jim. It's about singling someone out intentionally. And
disrespectfully.


Do you treat everyone equally, Jim?

I treat them appropriately. What is appropriate for an adult is not
appropriate for a child. To treat them equally could be very unsafe.

Avoiding the question.


Even when you have a strong bias
against some characteristic of theirs that you find objectionable? No
matter what?

The only bias I have is in my Southgate Type 7.


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

I state without prejudice that I don't have the bias you accuse me of.
I have standards that I adhere to.

Your actions speak differently.


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

Rev. Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

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

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

Some people said that when people organized marches and protests against
things that violated *their standards*, they were acting disrespectfully.

True enough. Not directly related to this one single solitary isssue
that we're discussing here, though, is it? Nope.


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

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

And by saying you know, you are doing exactly what you describe.

A puzzling response, Jim - I'm an Option 1 kind of guy myself.

How about you? A bit 2, a little 3 maybe....


So do you, Jim.

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

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

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

Some would. I did. So did Kim, and so have you. And while I respect
Kim's use of the word "friend", I would say that the honesty and openness
here - even in disagreement - are the actions of "true friends".

One last sidestep for the road, Jim? Honesty and openness isn't what
your actions were about, now were they?

Be honest. And do try to stick to the facts!


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
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.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

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.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.


I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)


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

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?


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

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right! That's all that matters.....


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
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.

Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration:

I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and
have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking
the time to gather the facts.

Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you
wrote it.

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.

It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They
exist. They can't now be denied.

Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I have a bandwagon?

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. 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.

That's simply incorrect.

Let's do another example for purposes of illustration:

I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may
have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me
as an individual.

If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration
added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments,
I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came
from you. Are you starting to get the picture?

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.

No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line
between what's right and what's wrong.

Dave K8MN


Live with it, Dave, live with it...

Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim wrote:

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'll bet you get that a lot. However, why should I do all of the work
for you?
Are you too busy to pray for yourself?

Dave K8MN


Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays?

Kim W5TIT

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
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.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?

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.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

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

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together,
making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

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

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?

Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right!

Not according to Kim.

Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Sadly, some people attempt to forge
a tie between the terms "polite" and
"political correctness". There is no
link between them. Jim didn't treat
Kim's callsign badly; he didn't use it
at all. After all, it could be easily
argued that Kim didn't treat amateur
radio with respect in choosing her
call. A number of us believe that her
choice was tacky and tactless. (snip)


So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something?
Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave?

Regardless, lets get to the basics of this issue. What is wrong with the
word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as a noun meaning "either of two soft
fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman." Seem rather
innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like most women, has those "soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs." So why would so many be offended by her
very mention of that fact? It's not like she's refering to the sexual organs
or something.


It might say something about their
character but it doesn't say anything
negative about it. The FCC looks
the other way with regard to language
used in prime time television these
days. (snip)


So you're comparing a woman's breasts to the filthy or offensive language
on television? Isn't that somewhat prudish, Dave?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
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.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?

Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct,
which is clearly missing here. As you are aware.

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.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue.

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

Sorry to hear that, Jim.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

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

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together,
making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

....but totally unrelated to the issue. As you are aware.

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

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?

Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed.


Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

Not the issue. As you are aware.

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right!

Not according to Kim.

According to you - read your own post!

Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

Not true at all, Jim.

Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full
version of this post:

"....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun."

An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim.


That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion. I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

73, Leo

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Sadly, some people attempt to forge
a tie between the terms "polite" and
"political correctness". There is no
link between them. Jim didn't treat
Kim's callsign badly; he didn't use it
at all. After all, it could be easily
argued that Kim didn't treat amateur
radio with respect in choosing her
call. A number of us believe that her
choice was tacky and tactless. (snip)

So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something?
Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave?

Jim has every "right" not to use Kim's callsign whether she does
something or not. Kim has no power to force him to use her callsign or
make him give approval to her choice.

Regardless, lets get to the basics of this issue. What is wrong with the
word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as a noun meaning "either of two soft
fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman." Seem rather
innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like most women, has those "soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs." So why would so many be offended by her
very mention of that fact? It's not like she's refering to the sexual organs
or something.

Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight. The term is vulgar slang
and you have, I'm sure, seen Kim's most recent explanation for having
chosen her call. Kim's choice is simply another of her several ways of
thumbing her nose at the world. Maybe you're the kind of fellow who
would be proud to have his wife, mother or daughter choose a similar
call. I'm not.

It might say something about their
character but it doesn't say anything
negative about it. The FCC looks
the other way with regard to language
used in prime time television these
days. (snip)

So you're comparing a woman's breasts to the filthy or offensive language
on television? Isn't that somewhat prudish, Dave?

No, Dwight. I'm comparing tasteless and tacky with tasteless and tacky.

Dave K8MN