|
|
On 11 Jul 2003 09:27:27 -0700, N2EY wrote:
One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the rules" anyway. This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those rules date from 1978. This sort of thing was debated amongst the cognoscenti in the hard times before the CB license was abandoned by pressure from the Ford Administration (Remember "First Momma" Betty Ford ??). Here are some scenarios: Imagined Scenario #1 Judge to Prosecutor - "What has this defendant violated?" Prosecutor to Judge - "He operated a transmitter without a license" Judge to Prosecutor - "Is there anything barring him from getting a license?" Prosecutor to Judge - "No, your honor" Judge to Prosecutor - "Will he be legal when he gets one?" Prosecutor to Judge - "Yes, your honor" Prosecutor to Defendant - "I order you to get a license. Next Case" Imagined Scenario #2: Congress to FCC - "What is your number one headache that is costing a lot of money?" FCC to Congress - "Tracking down and punishing all the unlicensed CB operators" Congress to FCC - "Well, just drop the CB license requirement. Then you won't have an "unlicensed" CB operator problem any more" Unfortunately, both of them were real and the FCC did the latter. Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur license, there will be more hams and fewer pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line, enforcement will be easier. Not at all. It's the same amount of work to DF the bozo, and the penalty phase is just as difficult. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!):
WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!): WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. KB3EIA - minimum 4 years from date of requiremen drop. - Mik KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in
et: N2EY wrote: So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!): WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. KB3EIA - minimum 4 years from date of requiremen drop. - Mik KB3EIA - That would be July 5, 2007, then. I don't think it will be that long, though. I'm on the list for May 1, 2004. BTW, Luxembourg just ditched the code test. There's a new country every couple of weeks. |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!): WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY Quite pleased to *lose* this one. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
So far (note that two predicted dates are in the pas, with two more only weeks
away): WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be eliminated in this decade. While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15 politicians to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on their hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East Overshoe, Iowa and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership about how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really counts we actually increased the Morse requirement." That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
While I wish it would be sooner, I'm going to guestimate
that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004. Carl - wk3c "N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be eliminated in this decade. While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15 politicians to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on their hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East Overshoe, Iowa and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership about how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really counts we actually increased the Morse requirement." That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote: "N2EY" wrote Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be eliminated in this decade. You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY Put me down for July 1, 2005. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: I'm going to guestimate that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004. Carl, Need an exact date for the pool. Dec 1? Dec 15? Let me know and I'll put you in. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm? I don't know if FCC will or will not, but I expect ARRL to ask for an increase. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dec. 30, 2004
Carl - wk3c "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: I'm going to guestimate that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004. Carl, Need an exact date for the pool. Dec 1? Dec 15? Let me know and I'll put you in. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") Kim: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in news:bte3p7
: "N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY I see we have 14 on the list and 3 are already out of the running. What do we get if we win? N3KIP |
Alun wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in news:bte3p7 : "N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY I see we have 14 on the list and 3 are already out of the running. What do we get if we win? Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in :
Alun wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in news:bte3p7 : "N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY I see we have 14 on the list and 3 are already out of the running. What do we get if we win? Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key? - Mike KB3EIA - LOL! A Morse key might be a very ironic prize, depending on who won. I suppose if I won a key I would have to have my first CW QSO, after 24 years QRV! Alun, N3KIP (G8VUK) |
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
What do we get if we win? Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key? I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it. I'll settle for the K2... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon "Where nothing is heard but discouraging words, and the skies are all cloudy all day...." (snowing on and off all week) |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm? I don't know if FCC will or will not, but I expect ARRL to ask for an increase. It seems unlikely that the FCC would increase the requirement for code. The medical wavier issue would pop up again, and they don't want to be bothered. Also, what of all those "extra lites" issued since restructuring day? At this point, it's a sure bet that the FCC will never increase the code speed. |
- LOL! A Morse key might be a very ironic prize, depending on who won. I suppose if I won a key I would have to have my first CW QSO, after 24 years QRV! Alun, N3KIP (G8VUK) That's about as long ago since I did a CW QSO. :-) Let's see, several petitions were submitted a few months ago, and the comment periods are now closed. So it's probably sitting on some brearucrat's desk right now. Or at the bottom of the pile on one or more commissioners' desks, to be looked at when there's nothing better to do. And they'll spend a few minutes looking at the restructuring R&O, find the part about code kept only because of the treaty, note that the teaty has changed, delete the code requirement, and publish it in the federal register. Then it takes force 4 months later. So it cannot take place before May 2004 (date it takes force, "when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US"). Add a few more months for the brearucracy, so I say "August 1, 2004" 73 de WA2ISE |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: What do we get if we win? Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key? I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it. I'll settle for the K2... ggg Though that Icom 7800 Hans told us about might be a good prize too. That Jim is a really generous guy, ya'know? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 WA2ISE: August 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") Kim: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Let's see, several petitions were submitted a few months ago, and the comment periods are now closed. So it's probably sitting on some brearucrat's desk right now. Or at the bottom of the pile on one or more commissioners' desks, looked at when there's nothing better to do. I doubt very much that the Commissioners read individual comments on ham radio issues like that. If my guess is right, one or two staffers have to read all of them and come up with what they think is the best solution for all concerned. And they'll spend a few minutes looking at the restructuring R&O, find the part about code kept only because of the treaty, note that the t[r]eaty has changed, delete the code requirement, and publish it in the federal register. Maybe. They could also change their minds based on any number of factors. Or simply use the petitions to formulate an NPRM. Then it takes force 4 months later. Unless we go through a whole NPRM cycle. So it cannot take place before May 2004 (date it takes force, "when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US"). Add a few more months for the brearucracy, so I say "August 1, 2004" I'll put you on the list.. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) No. Maybe a J-38 key? Don't have one. The prize is braggin' rights... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: What do we get if we win? Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key? I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it. I'll settle for the K2... ggg Though that Icom 7800 Hans told us about might be a good prize too. That Jim is a really generous guy, ya'know? Not that generous. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: What do we get if we win? Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key? I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it. I'll settle for the K2... ggg Though that Icom 7800 Hans told us about might be a good prize too. That Jim is a really generous guy, ya'know? Not that generous. Well, I tried! I don't blame you though. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 WA2ISE: August 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 WA2ISE: August 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. Dave K8MN |
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is another. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in
: Dwight Stewart wrote: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is another. Dave K8MN I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant. You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you? As for the lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no comment? If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by saying nothing. Alun, N3KIP |
"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political correctness by those people. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about their own character. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dave Heil" wrote Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that. Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right. Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right. Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right. YMMV. That's your right. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. If Jim does not want to use Kim's callsign, he doesn't have to.I don't have a problem with it, but some people do. Even so, if she wishes to change the post, she should not put it in as if Jim posted it. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. If I were in this situation, I would post a polite note with my callsign, and not post it as if Jim did the posting. I know until I looked back up at the from area on the screen, I though it was from Jim. I dobt any of us wants our posts altered. We could eventually get like the crazies thaat post here from tim to time. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political correctness by those people. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about their own character. Regardless of the reasoning, do you concur with altering peoples posts to reflect your own wishes? - Mike KB3EIA |
Alun wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in : Dwight Stewart wrote: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is another. Dave K8MN I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant. You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you? I might not have chosen a call like Kim's? I flat out didn't choose a call like Kim's. I can honestly say that I would not change the post of another to make it appear that the original poster had written something different than what was originally posted. As for the lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no comment? I have no doubt at all that anything Kim would have written would have been worse than no comment. If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by saying nothing. I've not known Kim to be bound by politeness. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com