"KØHB" wrote:

"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.

Changing it is one thing. Changing it and making appear that Jim wrote
are two quite different things.

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.

It certainly is.

Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Not by making the material look as if it is a quote of what Jim wrote,
it isn't.

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.

Under no circumstances could Kim remind me of the "Church Lady". As to
the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote

As to the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it
your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?

Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
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


Dave: First, phuck you and what you think "character" is all about. You are
nothing short of a self-serving, high-nosed, snobbish, educated idiot--and
nothing more; and some of those are even questionable. Second: on
character, like I care.

And, if I've made a post I'VE OBVIOUSLY CHANGED IT OR AM JUST PLAIN
REPOSTING IT. What is so hard about that? Jim refuses to put my callsign
associated with my prediction. I will add it whenever I feel (yeah, one of
those "feeling" things you know nothing about) like it.

Kim W5TIT

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.


How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

Is that the Grumpy old Man list?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote

As to the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it
your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?

Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

See if you can break your contract. In "Grumpiest Old Men", you'll be
starring opposite Kim Walker.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote

As to the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it
your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?

Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

See if you can break your contract. In "Grumpiest Old Men", you'll be
starring opposite Kim Walker.


I ain't that grumpy. In fact I feel a spell of downright warm fuzzy
friendliness coming on, and genuine concern and empathy for the opinions and
feelings of those who have lost their clues and don't know where to find
them.

73, de Hans "He isn't a nice man" K0HB

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.


How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

Is that the Grumpy old Man list?

Who could be grumpy in their presence?

And at the very top of the list: Jan Smithers, best known as "Bailey Quarters"
(turns 55 this year).

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

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

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.

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.

Kim W5TIT


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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 -


Oh, yeah, Mike. And God forbid that you think that Jim posted my prediction
with MY callsign next to it, rather than my name!!! Oh, that would be just
awful...

Sheesh,

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"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.


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'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/


Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"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

WAIT...oh, I was going to change this to show that it is posted from Kim
Walker but, oh my gosh look! It says "From Kim Walker" in the list and,
gosh, let me check now--yep, that pesky little Header has my Yahoo email
address *just like always* and, why just look at that, it even has the same
routing information as always.

It's obvious up front, surely, to anyone not *searching* for the sake of
disagreement and dislike, that this is from anyone but Jim/N2EY. And, it's
obvious, since *I posted to him once and asked him to include my callsign,*
that I am simply adding my callsign to the list. And, of course it's
obvious, right up front from the "From" line, then by further investigation
(if some stupido really needed to go further) into the Header, that this was
sent by someone other than Jim/N2EY.

So, I guess I will no longer have to even bother with those who can't see
the obvious.

Oh, yeah: Kim W5TIT

writes:

Mike, how in the

[expletive deleted]

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 problem is that you *didn't* alter the number
of symbols at the beginning of the line, so it
looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's
no in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above.

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.

Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without
changing the symbols is misattribution and one of the very few
things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers
simply tell what the number of symbols means.

Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd
want to know.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?


Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:



Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.


How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

Is that the Grumpy old Man list?


Who could be grumpy in their presence?

And at the very top of the list: Jan Smithers, best known as "Bailey Quarters"
(turns 55 this year).


One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how Jan got so little
attention compared to Loni Anderson, who has to be one of the scariest
wimmin this lad has ever seen.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

You could always past it as a quote.


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

I'm not on any Dave Heil bandwagon. That I agree with him in this case
means only that I agree with him in this case.


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.

I would have submitted the post as a quote, and perhaps with a "ahem -
My callsign is W5TIT in case you forgot, Jim!" You would have made your
point most eloquently in that case.


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.

Who's angry? Jim has the right to be skittish about your callsign. You
have the right to call him on it. I'm not going to presume to tell you
how to make your posts, but I'll tell you how I would have reacted in
the same circumstances.


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.

Who dislikes you? Not me.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?



Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).

If Kim is uncomfortable with Kim's callsign, that is within his rights.
Standard email would have left no doubts about the message. Message
quoted, and "this" should be changed.

I don't know about everyone's mailreaders, but on the ones I used, it
takes an extra effort to reply to a message and take the quotes out.

I noticed it immediately. What is the point of doing it otherwise?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:

Under no circumstances could Kim remind me of the "Church Lady". As to
the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?


WEEK??? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
writes:


Mike, how in the


[expletive deleted]


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 problem is that you *didn't* alter the number
of symbols at the beginning of the line, so it
looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's
no in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above.


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.


Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without
changing the symbols is misattribution and one of the very few
things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers
simply tell what the number of symbols means.

Kind of like:

In Unix style commenting, a "" is placed before each line of quoted
text. Add your new text below the relevant quote.

from http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/netiquette.html


Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd
want to know.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?



Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception
of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign
in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request
which
should have been unnecessary).

If Kim is uncomfortable with Kim's callsign, that is within his rights.
Standard email would have left no doubts about the message. Message
quoted, and "this" should be changed.


Uh, OK. The J and K keys are right next to each other... ;)

Kim W5TIT

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how Jan

[Smithers]

got so little
attention compared to Loni Anderson, who has to be one of the scariest
wimmin this lad has ever seen.

It was part of the subtly subversive nature of the show, Mike. All of the
characters were true originals and stereotype-busters.

Part of the subtext was that the more attractive "Bailey" was overlooked
because of people's assumptions rather than the reality. The viewers
saw it, of course. Same for the fact that "Jennifer" was actually in
charge and very intelligent, "Johnny Fever" had an encyclopedic knowledge of
rock and roll, "Venus" had a hidden past that no one suspected, etc.
Appearances were intentionally deceiving.

Remember episodes like the one where Jennifer moves to a new house? Or the ones
with the "Red Wigglers" and "Ferryman Funeral Homes" singing commercials? When
Venus explained the atom in two minutes? Johnny Fever's reaction time after
several drinks? Save The Flim? The list goes on and on..

And truly great music was part of the show, yet never slowed it down.

Yet the show was cancelled even though it was #6 overall in the ratings. The
*overall* ratings. Can you imagine a #6 show that cost almost nothing to make
being cancelled today?

"WKRP" and "Barney Miller" essentially invented the workplace ensemble sitcom
that has no central character.. Before those two shows, almost all sitcoms were
reinventions of the nuclear-family-plus-sidekick based 'The Honeymooners"
and/or "I Love Lucy", (which are quite alike in many respects, except that the
gender roles are reversed in "Lucy"). Most sitcoms today are simply variations
on
Alice, Ralph, Trixie and Ed, or Lucy, Ricky, Ethel and Fred.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"as God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly..."

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

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.

To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.

Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

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.

"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.

It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

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
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
K0HB: January 1, 2011 (first date not in "this decade")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

I'll put you on the list for January 1, 2011, assuming by "this decade" you
meant the ten years from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:


"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.


Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

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.


To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.


Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.


Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Nope

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?


Nope


Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?


Nope



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.


"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.


It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

I did, but saw no need to comment until the mis-attribute letter came along.


Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

Most of her posts have the correct attributes (or is that
attributification) 8^) How this message became "different" is a mystery.
Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was not. Heck if I did that, I'd send
out an "oops" at least.

- 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
K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

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.

Egbert: September 13, 2003
Jeff: September 29, 2003
Leroy: December 31, 2003
Bill: January 1, 2004
Phil: March 15, 2004
Jim H: April 1, 2004
Jim M: April 15, 2004
Alun: May 1, 2004
Ryan: July 1, 2004
Robert: August 1, 2004
Larry: September 15, 2004
Charles: December 30, 2004
Dee: July 1, 2005
Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")


Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?


Howzat?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" 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.

Egbert: September 13, 2003
Jeff: September 29, 2003
Leroy: December 31, 2003
Bill: January 1, 2004
Phil: March 15, 2004
Jim H: April 1, 2004
Jim M: April 15, 2004
Alun: May 1, 2004
Ryan: July 1, 2004
Robert: August 1, 2004
Larry: September 15, 2004
Charles: December 30, 2004
Dee: July 1, 2005
Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")


Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?


Howzat?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't know
his place?) ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bert Craig wrote:

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't know
his place?) ;-)

oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
looked it up on arr.org.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Jim, remove my name and prediction from this list.

Kim W5TIT


"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")

K0HB: January 1, 2011 (first date not in "this decade")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article k.net,
"KØHB"
writes:


"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.


Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of
having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

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.


To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate
for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I
have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited
out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I
try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what
words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore
giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.


Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.


Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Nope

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of
having
done so?


Nope


Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?


Nope



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.


"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.


It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've
been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

I did, but saw no need to comment until the mis-attribute letter came
along.


Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as
anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or
by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change.
Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

Most of her posts have the correct attributes (or is that
attributification) 8^) How this message became "different" is a mystery.
Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was not. Heck if I did that, I'd send
out an "oops" at least.

- Mike KB3EIA -




It was not an "oops" at all, Mike. I've noticed before that Jim sends that
list out without my callsign associated with it. I consider that my
prediction is probably among the most accurate of the predictions that have
a true "pulse" on amateur radio--REGARDLESS of the callsign of *any* chosen
ham.

Jim is disrespectful to me to make it look like I am not an amateur when he
chooses not to associate me as an amateur when I've made a conscious
decision to participate in something he's providing for fun. I
deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
a problem with that.

I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
list. If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.

Kim W5TIT

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
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")
K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" 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.

Egbert: September 13, 2003
Jeff: September 29, 2003
Leroy: December 31, 2003
Bill: January 1, 2004
Phil: March 15, 2004
Jim H: April 1, 2004
Jim M: April 15, 2004
Alun: May 1, 2004
Ryan: July 1, 2004
Robert: August 1, 2004
Larry: September 15, 2004
Charles: December 30, 2004
Dee: July 1, 2005
Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")

Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")


Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?


Howzat?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Bert Craig wrote:

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't
know
his place?) ;-)

oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
looked it up on arr.org.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, nice of ya....but just leave me off...

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Bert Craig wrote:

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't
know
his place?) ;-)

oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
looked it up on arr.org.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's all good, my friend. :-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

All the talk about dumbing down and we get a thread with nothing to do
with radio at all. Dumb on...

Bert Craig wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...

Bert Craig wrote:


Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't

know

his place?) ;-)

oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
looked it up on arr.org.

- Mike KB3EIA -


It's all good, my friend. :-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")

I can put you down for that date, Hans. However, note that the "first date not
in 'this millenium' is January 1, 3001 - because there was no year 0 in our
calendar.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Kim"
writes:

Jim is disrespectful to me to make it look like I am not an amateur when he
chooses not to associate me as an amateur when I've made a conscious
decision to participate in something he's providing for fun.

There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's your
perception, not my intent.

I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the symbols,
so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked that one up to
a simple typo and said nothing.

Then, you peeled off *all* the symbols, including the one by my
signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.

I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
a problem with that.

If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
you do not give others.

I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
list.

Done. No problem.

If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.

I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
choice.

But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal in
every way but license class.

I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your choice
of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
sequentially.

The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
in the best interests of all concerned.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

However, note that the "first date not
in 'this millenium' is January 1, 3001.

You're mistaken Jim, but I don't want to carry on another pointless argument
with you for the next 996 years, so just forget it.

With all kind wishes for Y3K,

de Hans, K0HB