Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.

*Wink* and *chuckle* on your part noted.

That was a smile, Dave - what wink and chuckle? Kim replied with some
valuable insight on this comment - please read what she wrote in her
previous post, and do your best to empathize with her reply.


Given a choice between voicing disapproval and the *wink* and *chuckle*,
your choice has been obvious.

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

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

So the Mark Twain quote isn't an accurate assessment of humankind?

It is, unfortunately. Did you read my reply, though? - I'll post it
again so you can have another run at it:

So your private morals must be at odds with your public morals.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

Get real, "Leo".

Dave K8MN

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


I wouldn't even attempt to tell my wife, mother, or adult daughter,
which
callsign to select for themselves. All of these women clearly have
enough
intelligence to select the callsign they want, whatever it might be.


Excellent dodge of the statement, Dwight. You might have a future in
politics.

LOL!! My wife, who seldom makes any comment on anything pretaining to
amature radio, just walked into the room, looked over my shoulder and
upon seeing kim's call sign displayed in the newsgroup header said, "who
would be issued a call sign like that?" After explaining it was a vanity
call sign and the person requested it, her comment was, "what kind of
idiot would ever choose such a call sign?"
I ask her if she thought it was vulgar. "Not really vulgar, just
suggestive and totally lacking in taste, I suppose some people have to
get attention anyway they can".


You, your wife, Larry Roll, my good friends here in this area who enjoy the
fun of my callsign--anyone--has the right to believe and think as they do;
and the opinion of my callsign is an absolutely correct one--for each and
everyone who has one.

And, for me, and those who either think nothing of my callsign, think it's
fun, wouldn't have selected it but don't see it is a main distraction, we
are just as correct.

Your wife, JJ, probably also has the opinion that people who dance for a
living; who are in magazines like Hustler, Playboy and Playgirl; who lead a
risque life, etc., are all "totally lacking in taste." I don't and I am
certainly not in any minority.

The difference between people like "us" and people like "you" is that we
don't expect anyone to live up to anyone else's expectations or standards.
I have no problem at all with your opinion, the opinion of Larry Roll, the
opinion of your wife. I do, however, take great exception to crossing the
line and deciding that it's quite OK for sneering, resorting to desperate
other measures trying to make someone feel embarrassed, etc. Whether you or
anyone else realizes it, there are people--such as myself--who have risen
way above letting the opinions of others get in the way of living life
beautifully. But, it takes a lot of work and self-reflection to get there.
And, there are more people who won't ever get there than who are there--and
it is for those people that each and every time someone acts like an asshole
toward another, I will have no problem mimicking the behavior right back at
them.

So, tell your wife that I totally respect her opinion--but that is as far as
it goes. I don't "need" the attention of anyone. I am well liked, love
people, work every day to help people succeed and make the best of
themselves, and pick up in a second for the underdog in any situation. And,
I don't know what she thinks I might be suggesting, since it is singly my
husband that I love and he needs no suggestion. Do you?

Kim W5TIT

Part 97 does not assign me any responsibility to ensure that a
frenchman is operating inside his frequency allocations, only that I
am operating inside mine.

If a frenchman calls me on 6-meters I will certainly answer him since
F is a new band-country for me on 6.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.

*Wink* and *chuckle* on your part noted.

That was a smile, Dave - what wink and chuckle? Kim replied with some
valuable insight on this comment - please read what she wrote in her
previous post, and do your best to empathize with her reply.


Given a choice between voicing disapproval and the *wink* and *chuckle*,
your choice has been obvious.

Really - what were you thinking of, Dave? Tsk, tsk.


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

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

So the Mark Twain quote isn't an accurate assessment of humankind?

It is, unfortunately. Did you read my reply, though? - I'll post it
again so you can have another run at it:

So your private morals must be at odds with your public morals.

Perhaps - are yours, Dave? I sincerely hope so.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!



Get real, "Leo".

I think, therefore I am, "Dave".


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

Then what about your comments about folks deserving equal treatment?

One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That's *three* questions, "Leo".

I've never brought up Kim's inappropriate call on the air. Both "Bill"
and "Pete" are hypotheticals.

That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!


Hypothetical Pete isn't a ham. He never heard of the Amateur's Code? I
didn't lessen his operating pleasure.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
...

LOL!! My wife, who seldom makes any comment on anything pretaining to
amature radio, just walked into the room, looked over my shoulder and
upon seeing kim's call sign displayed in the newsgroup header said, "who
would be issued a call sign like that?" After explaining it was a vanity
call sign and the person requested it, her comment was, "what kind of
idiot would ever choose such a call sign?"
I ask her if she thought it was vulgar. "Not really vulgar, just
suggestive and totally lacking in taste, I suppose some people have to
get attention anyway they can".


You, your wife, Larry Roll, my good friends here in this area who enjoy the
fun of my callsign--anyone--has the right to believe and think as they do;
and the opinion of my callsign is an absolutely correct one--for each and
everyone who has one.

Sort of an inclusive, "it means all of those things", huh?

And, for me, and those who either think nothing of my callsign, think it's
fun, wouldn't have selected it but don't see it is a main distraction, we
are just as correct.

You're sort of a thermos bottle for amateur radio. It keeps things hot
or it keeps things cold!

Your wife, JJ, probably also has the opinion that people who dance for a
living;

Modern dance? Jazz? Ballet?

who are in magazines like Hustler, Playboy and Playgirl; who lead a
risque life, etc., are all "totally lacking in taste." I don't and I am
certainly not in any minority.

No you aren't, Kim. You and the entire Springer Show audience are in
agreement.

The difference between people like "us" and people like "you" is that we
don't expect anyone to live up to anyone else's expectations or standards.

But you've already told me that my view of you thumbing your nose at the
world is correct. Wouldn't this latest position of your be at odds with
that claim?

I have no problem at all with your opinion, the opinion of Larry Roll, the
opinion of your wife. I do, however, take great exception to crossing the
line and deciding that it's quite OK for sneering, resorting to desperate
other measures trying to make someone feel embarrassed, etc. Whether you or
anyone else realizes it, there are people--such as myself--who have risen
way above letting the opinions of others get in the way of living life
beautifully. But, it takes a lot of work and self-reflection to get there.
And, there are more people who won't ever get there than who are there--and
it is for those people that each and every time someone acts like an asshole
toward another, I will have no problem mimicking the behavior right back at
them.

....but you have no objections at all to offending folks who believe your
choice of vanity callsign is tasteless and offensive.

So, tell your wife that I totally respect her opinion--but that is as far as
it goes. I don't "need" the attention of anyone.

Your post on thumbing your nose at the world indicates otherwise. So
does your choice of callsigns.

Dave K8MN

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
Part 97 does not assign me any responsibility to ensure that a
frenchman is operating inside his frequency allocations, only that I
am operating inside mine.

If a frenchman calls me on 6-meters I will certainly answer him since
F is a new band-country for me on 6.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

So would I. There's no way I can be responsible for knowing, much
less keeping track of, operating privileges for other countries.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , Leo
writes:

Get real, "Leo".

I think, therefore I am, "Dave".

True enough.

"Dave" put Descartes before de horse...

:-)

LHA / WMD

The plot thins:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:02:39 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

Then what about your comments about folks deserving equal treatment?

Dave, you are jumping to confusions here

My next paragraph focusses on this statement further:


One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That's *three* questions, "Leo".

Oh - you're right! Thanks, "Dave"

Care to answer them?


I've never brought up Kim's inappropriate call on the air. Both "Bill"
and "Pete" are hypotheticals.

Oh - I forgot - real life is different than on the air. You only need
to act in a friendly and courteous manner when you are on the air,
right? Not here, for example. Who could possibly be listening here?

Got it.


That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!


Hypothetical Pete isn't a ham. He never heard of the Amateur's Code? I
didn't lessen his operating pleasure.

This is funny. Maybe he has a hypothetical Extra ticket? Maybe he's
just ignoring you on the air cause you hate his hypothetical dog,
Dave.

But Hey, you didn't answer any of my questions yet, Dave! Bummer!

Betcha thought I wouldn't notice, huh?

BTW, speaking of questions, you accidentally cut one of my questions
out of your reply, Dave - just to help out, I listed it below.
preceeded by your comments:

Regarding:

Full figured women dealing with fallout as a fact of life...

Dave said:

Given a choice between voicing disapproval and the *wink* and
*chuckle*, your choice has been obvious.

And Leo asked:

Really - what were you thinking of, Dave? Tsk, tsk.

BTW, I can do a "smiley" OK, but what is the graphic symbol for a
"chuckle"?? And doesn't a "wink" have a semicolon in it, like this
?

LOL.


Dave K8MN

Dave, you're a funny guy! Please be careful not to step in any of the
hypothetical dog poop next time you cut your lawn!

And next time you see Hypo Pete, tell him that Leo says he should
think about moving to a new neighbourhood!

73, Leo

Alpha Mike Foxtrot

On 18 Jan 2004 20:34:07 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Get real, "Leo".

I think, therefore I am, "Dave".

True enough.

"Dave" put Descartes before de horse...

:-)

Len, that's a good one! LOL!

LHA / WMD

73, Leo