RadioBanter - The Pool

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Leo
writes:

Jim,

Reply follows:

On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

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.

But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse
to acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a
public forum.

I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?

Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.

Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my rights
were violated.

That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as well!

I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?

See above.

Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own personal
morals and prejudices upon others?

Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the
same to me.

Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my
posts?

Of course not -

But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if
I write a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're
saying I do *not* have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".

oh wait - I just did....

GASP! Is that sarcasm from you, Jim?! No way!

but that does not confer upon you the right to remove or alter her
personal data without her permission!

"personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her
callsign. In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been
only one Kim. There have been at least 4 Jims, though.
.

(original attributed "period" left above). And, Jim, by the same token
"everyone here" (a very general statement I might add--coming from you)
knows you disagree with my callsign and "everyone here" knows that you
have generally refrained from repeating it in a post. "Everyone here"
knows that. But "no one there" may know that when the post is
encountered through a search, casual observation, new folks, whatever.

---- these two attributes inserted to "lock in" the attribution (I
do that all the time, nearly every post)
For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....

For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having
to write

certain things.

Did anyone here ask you
to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
offensive? Certainly not.

I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone
else can post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I
have to repeat it.

What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't
it?

Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".

That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote.
No one who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.

My perception says you *did* change the meaning of something I
submitted (i.e., wrote). I intend for anyone, *anyone* looking at that
list to see the same, the *exact same* thing in each and everyone's
submission. No else had to ask you to include their callsign: you made
the conscious decision to "just" insert everyone's callsign--*but
mine.* Therefore, there is an implied "difference" to a casual
observer. I do not wish my submission to be any different from anyone
else's, as the difference could mean to be taken as negative or
positive--and whatever impression it makes is not important to me. I
don't want there to *be any difference* between my submission, oh: *as
an amateur radio operator*, as any other amateur radio operator.

If Len Anderson, for example, submitted his prediction of a date that
CW testing will be removed from the amateur licensing process, a) would
you insert his submission, b) don't you find his whole general nature
abhorrent and would you insert his submission anyway and, c) would you
insert his first and last name, just first name, etc?

--- these attributes inserted
If you aren't
comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?

Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.

You cannot, on one hand, state that my callsign is a bad thing for the
ARS--and you did state that--then, on the other hand, state that you
have no prejudice. You *do* have prejudice and you demonstrate it
every time you delete my callsign from a post. I've never (ahem,
never) noticed if you keep my "signature" to my posts when you are
replying to them, Jim. Do you? Or is my callsign just as offensive
then as when I *intend* to include myself as an amateur radio in a list
you have *generally* invited people to join? You have never stated
"any offensive callsigns will not be listed." You have never stated,
"Kim, I will include you in the list if you wish, but I will not
include your callsign." You've actually never stated anything as to
why you were refraining from submitting my prediction with my callsign
*ATTRIBUTED* to it. You deliberately change the intention of my
message by leaving my callsign out. *You*, Jim, did the *FIRST*
deleting of attributions and, I might add, you have continued to do it
for--what--over a year, about a year, somewhere around there.

---these attributes inserted
Wouldn't
that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!

There's nothing illegal about it.

Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote
the original list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or
even *should* not do the list a certain way, it's *they* who are
trying to censor *me*.

If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included,
that's their right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote
something I did not.

See above.

Where?

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

Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!

So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?

Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
Hers, and yours.

I do not see that I have done anything wrong.

Of course not. You probably *don't* have any prejudice where your own
decsions and actions have been made. But, by my perception, you are
*JUST AS WRONG* to take away--or leave out--*ATTRIBUTION TO MY
CALLSIGN* as I am to take away--or leave out--attribution characters in
an newsgroup post. I daresay, though, your deletion is far more
offensive than mine. The basis, meaning, and original message and
intent of that message was in no way harmed or changed when I added my
callsign to the list. None. Except, perhaps, that it then could have
looked like you had (God forbid) typed my callsign.

Your deletion--or leaving out, in this case--deliberately makes it look
like I have no callsign.

---these attributes inserted
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.

Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was
their right to do it?

No - but that isn't the issue here.

I agree. That isn't the issue for me, either. I think the real issue
is exhibiting a form of respect for another individual who has earned
the right to have a callsign attributed to her--*WHETHER OR NOT* you
agree with the callsign. The one thing that Larry Roll has never, ever
done--to his credit arrrghhhh, yes I said that--is "strip" me of my
callsign. You have, Jim, and your actions are wrong. They are not
only wrong, they are meanspirited and, to me, hateful.

---this attribute inserted
Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
and judgements.

Your obvious discomfort with her
call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
consider it improper.

Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?

No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you
have made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by
me--and was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be
listed *just as every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*,
Jim--whether you think you do or not--have the right to *disascociated*
me from my callsign. Period. But, especially in a list where you've
invited people to join, yet you did not say anyone would be listed in
any way differently than anyone else.

---this attribute inserted
Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
it angers others.

She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
---this attribute inserted

You do not have the right to list me "differently" than any other
amateur radio operator. You have the right to refrain from having my
callsign in a post, I could agree on that. But NOT a list.

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.

Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?

Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of
my posts. I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".

Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
aren't you?

Nope. I'm editing it out.

Worse. To censor would be to refrain from REPOSTING any submissions
wherein I had added my prediction. That would have been far more
respectable. My response would have been to ask you why you were not
including me; you would have explained, and I would have
respected--fully--your decision to act on a belief you have in a
respectable manner. I do not respect your deliberate act to deny me
listed as an amateur radio operator in a list of other amateur radio
operators.

"Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all.
I have not done that, and would not if I could.

Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by her fellow
amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?

I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own
posts is appropriate behavior.

Then, you would not be able to respond to any of my *OTHER POSTS*, Jim.
Because each time you respond to a post from and *do not* remove my
callsign from my original post, then you are "proliferating" my
callsign--even more so, I might add, than when it would be in this
thread, probably. This thread has only been this active because of
this debate that is going on. I haven't checked, but do you deleted my
callsign from replies to posts from me? You'd be leaving behind my
name so people would still know someone named Kim has originally
submitted the post. At any rate, deleting my callsign from a post
would follow along with your reasoning above; that to do so would
minimize the exposure to my callsign. And, I daresay, that to
completely follow along with that reasoning and have it be valid and
accepted as true and logical reasoning, then you would need to refrain
from *any* post wherein my callsign is evidenced.

---these attributes inserted
Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?

Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility
for what I post.

Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as
"wrong" is really a way of someone imposing their own personal
morals and prejudices upon me.

Ahem...

That doesn't sound like
you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does
not follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.

I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
inappropriate for the ARS.

That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.

Says who?
---this attribute inserted

Well, I think Leo just said it. And, I agree.

FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they
generate enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code
tests of those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the
treaty requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize
anyone when a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.

Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say
the FCC is wrong?

You did not say that the FCC is wrong for issuing my callsign. You
said my callsign is inappropriate for the ARS. It may be (and I
wholeheartedly disagree with you), but it is not for you--as an
individual and certainly as an amateur radio operator--to disassociate
me from ham radio as an amateur radio operator by leaving off my
callsign from something in which I have *intended* for it to be.

---this attribute inserted
Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the
problems it has?

No. Not wrong at all. But, it would be wrong of you to delete a
"name" someone goes by from a list of names in which people might be
expressing their agreement or disagreement, simply because you disagree
with the way it sounds or even that it might be risque. It would
incorrect of you to delete or refuse to attribute their name to them
for any reason.

---this attribute inserted
Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the
rules changed?

Not at all. And, I'd imagine that those who are so driven, are
actively involved by contacting the appropriate agencies and
departments and by active debate to state their cause and purpose.
However, again, it would be incorrect for someone to keep a name or
callsign (in this case) from a list in which they intended their name
or callsign to appear.

---this attribute inserted
Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it
once on TV?

I could drone on, but hopefully the point has been made.

She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
sequentially. It
was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to
extinction" that exceeded 3000 posts.

But it is her call - issued to her for her use.

And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.

If I *had* used it regularly, once in a while, or every so often, on
the air, would that have changed anything here? I think not, so don't
bother using it. Regardless, it is my callsign and I thought it would
be listed when I originally submitted my prediction.

---this attribute inserted
And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have
to use it here.

Nope. You sure don't. But, it would be nice in the future if you
caution that any amatuer radio operator, with whose callsign you
disagree, who submits something with the idea that he/she will be
listed just as everyone else, *will not* be treated in such a manner.

---these attributes inserted
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.

That is not up to you to decide, Jim.

Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain
callsigns are not appropriate?

Of course it is.

Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?

Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
callsigns, not just hers.

Why?

For the reasons stated by me in this post, for many.

---these attributes inserted
Do you not think that singling her out the way that you did was
disrespectful to her?

No.

I do. And, it is my perception that counts--although it's quite
obvious that others have at least some degree of concern in this area
as well.

---these attributes inserted
Are you that sanctimonious?

No. I'm that honest.

ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with
four-letter suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.

Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
old four letter combination?

Yes.

I do not.

---these attributes inserted
I'd be surprised!

I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why
would you be surprised if they
issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a
certain word. All kinds of
words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by
the FCC too).

Why is my callsign such a shock? Forget any reason that someone might
request it. I say that becasue, keep in mind that Michael (I think his
name was) requested and had K2TIT because it was the closest he could
come to commemorating the Tet Offensive. So, regardless of *why*
someone might request it, why the shock that the FCC would issue it?
The mere word "tit" or even the tit itself is not vulgar. Good
heavens, if you think it is then I am the one who is shocked! The word
is not intended to be used as a nickname on the amateur bands; Indeed,
I have sharply offended people who have done that. The full callsign
is all that is ever responded to, on the air anyway.

And, mainly, and the thing *everyone* always likes to ignore is that,
yes, the callsign was requested by me on a dare. HOWEVER, it was a
dare *after* I made the verbal observation that if I were to ever
request a *VANITY* callsign, it would certainly be associated with
something of vanity--not simply my initials. As you will recall, the
most important part of that story--and it is a true one--is that a) I
had never desired to get a vanity call, b) was mentioning to my fellow
hams [men] on the air that it was a pity they had no more creativity
than to simply request their initials and, c) that if I were to request
a callsign it would be related to my "vanity." Anyone who knew me (and
the all did) personally knew exactly what I was inferring by that
comment. Were I as famous as Dolly Parton, it would be for the same
reason she is--minus that I am a performer (I am not). My unique
callsign is unique because it is a woman's callsign who knows that
others perceive first in me, my tits. My intellect, beauty, wit,
charm, rogue behavior, honesty in dealing with all humas and nature,
and very, very opinionated nature all come secondary to the fact that,
on initial gaze, I am a large titted woman. And, my callsign uniquely
says, "get the hell over it, there's a person here to be reckoned
with." If anyone does not like the way I *like* and *prefer* to relay
that message, then tough titties (and they are not).

If anyone else (and here's your argument coming back on ya) *perceives*
my callsign to be vulgar, that is *their* perception. It is not my
intention. If anyone else becomes deragotory with my callsign, as
Larry, Dick, Dave, Waddles/ULX, and others have done in this newsgroup;
I daresay your problem is with them for they are the ones acting in a
vulgar nature.

---these attributes inserted
Even the vehicle
license plate guys have a handle on that one.....

Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.

The FCC could have refused to
issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like
the motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for
one) freely issue this suffix as well!

FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the
database, or better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the
suffixes immediately before and after are much more common.

Does not prove the point.

It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from
W5TIS or W5TIU

Or, K2TIT

---these attributes inserted

But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each
of us is better at somethings 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.

Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was
referring to.

No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.

I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!

Is Kim equal to me in technical knowledge of ham radio? In historic
knowledge? In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew
equipment? At the risk of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.

As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
vanity callsign, just like you!

Of course! And she does use it here.

But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not
have the right to refrain from doing so?

You may, of course, refrain from using it.

Gee, thanks. ;-)

But, you do not have the right to deliberately disassociate my callsign
from me in a situation where I am representing myself as a ham radio
operator among other ham radio operators with like actions. We are all
participating in the same poll, "The Pool." We are all submitting our
ideas, and every amateur radio operator--but me--has had their
submission listed with association to their callsign.

---attributes inserted
But why do you feel that
you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have
an issue with it with the rest of the group?

Because they asked.

And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?

No - that's why I don't censor anyone.

Sometimes, censorship is quite appropriate. I think censorship of my
submission would have been more appropriate, and respectful, than to
add my "name" to the list with a submission of other amateur radio
operators where their callsigns are listed.

(and, up here,

(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)

...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
call signs!

Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.

Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....

all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).

Were those calls sequentially issued?

You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether
they requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.

It makes a difference.
---attribute inserted

To *you*, Jim and some others. Not to me, not Leo, not to some others.
That someone gets, or even requests--doesn't matter--a callsign, it
behooves you as a fellow amateur to respect that person as an amateur
radio operator unless and until the licensing agency decides they
cannot be an amateur radio operator any more. Note I did not say you
have to respect that person as a person. I have absolutely no respect
in any way for Larry Roll, Dave Heil, Waddles/ULX, and quite a few
others actually. In fact I regard them with pure disdain. However,
they are amateur radio operators and no one outside the FCC as the
granting authority, can take that away from them. And, as fellow
amateur radio operators, they deserve my respect. *If* (and that is a
big if) I ever had to encounter them on the air, I would regard them
and treat them with the same respect that I have for every other
amateur radio operator.

Even here in this area, when we had two proven fake Navy SEAL amateurs
(proven by the organization that investigates that kind of stuff), and
I was the only one who took them on as idiots, I never disrespected
them on the air with rude remarks or insulting behavior. They would
come on the air and call me names, try to scare me, deliberately
violate nearly every R&R there is regarding transmission, but I never
did the same to them. I refrained from communicating with them and
would not respond to their childish, impish behavior. One day, the
last transmission ever made on the air to either of them, I reminded
one that the frequency was mine--which is proper operating practice and
still gives them the *appearance* of respect as an amateur.

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.

Why not?

Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns.
FCC will, however, issue them if requested through the vanity
program.

Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do
that?

-Because they don't care
-Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the
system -Because they don't want the complaints from those who want
such calls -Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few
resources.

I feel it is becuase there may be a thought in their mind that someone
might be embarrassed to have a callsign like that--and that is very
nice of them to carry out issuing the call as one that might cause
embarrassment to someone. They do care. Even though callsigns are
issued by computer, it's obvious someone looks at them, because there
are some set aside, as you say. I think the callsigns like mine are
simply set aside to be requested, rather than sequentially issued,
because they may cause embarrassment to someone--or maybe would even
cause embarrassment to the FCC if someone asked, "why in the world
would you have given me such a call?"

---attributes inserted
They have total authority over those calls - surely they ccontrol
them better than that?

Nope.

In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of
such callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".

No, his very general statement--in specific reference to activities on
the air, I might add--about my callsign and other behaviors in the ARS
(related, as I said, to on the air activities) could move the ARS one
step closer to extinction. I happen to totally disagree with him.
There is something about Riley that Larry doesn't understand, by the
way, Riley offered his comments *as a person* not as an authority of
the FCC. Big difference. The FCC officially has no remark on my
callsign other than, when asked, to state that they do not legislate or
regulate callsigns (something to that affect anyway--it was a long time
ago that we had communication together).

It's also quite obvious that Riley is wrong. The ARS is still around,
sitll healthy, and has even *gained* respect of important groups and
agencies as a viable organization of people ready and capable to serve,
if called upon to do so. The ARS is just fine and my callsign, nor the
behaviors of idiots on the air, are moving it closer to extinction.
There is not even a first step toward extinction of the ARS.

---attributes inserted
It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC
statement to the contrary.

I refer you to the Callbook and databases.

Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
exempt from sequential issue?

Their actions are enough to prove the point.

In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.

In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such
an opinion?

Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.

You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?

Why protest in an arena where the protest goes inactionable? Your
protest to me will have no effect, whatsoever, in having me change my
callsign. Even your refusal to list my callsign as an amateur radio
operator with a submission, among other amateur radio operators with a
submission, will have no positive effect on me changing my callsign.

You should simply stick to the argument that you find my callsign
inappropriate. That is the strongest (even at its weakest) argument
you can offer. To try and submit your actions as a demonstrable
protest falls way short. At least in my opinion.

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

Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is
in the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one
would prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable
and unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone
else here!

Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not
be done by othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they
are deciding what is "right" and "wrong" for more than themselves.
It's an unavoidable consequence of having an opinion. The only other
option is to never express any opinions at all.

For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur
license should be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on
the issue should take precedence over what others think and want.
They're saying that the FCC's current rules are incorrect and need
to change.

And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for
the code test to go away. Do they have the right to say those
things, and to try to get their
will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and
those who disagree have rights, too.

And that's the way it should be. YMMV

I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your
own value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.

See above about the tests.

??

Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
clearer then! :)

What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I
*must not* oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are
permitted by law.

Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?

Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:

1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
equal playing field and singling out no one.

Absolutely. I agree. Or, state that any amateur's callsign deemed as
inappropriate by you will not be listed in your poll.

---attributes inserted
2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let
someone else pick it up should they so choose.

By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to
impose *your* personal standards on *me*

I say there's a third option:

3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.

Which falls short of reasonable in any way.

---attributes inserted
It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
or cannot deal, with something about them.

I have not ostracized Kim.

You have ostracized me as a valid amateur radio operator by refusing to
include my callsign with my submission. You have ostracized me by
treating my submission as an amateur radio operator differently than
you treated a submission by any other amateur radio operator.

You have participated in ostracization (is that a word?) :)

---attributes inserted
What effect to you think that doing this would have on Kim?

Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.

Oh, Jim. Puhleeze! Surely, surely you know way better than that!!!

---attributes inserted
Do you not see that your choice of actions would hurt her feelings?

What about *my* feelings?

My feelings are not hurt, by the way. I could actually care less about
the issue of whether my callsign is on the list or not. However, the
reason *I* am persuing this as a topic of interest will be revealed at
the end of this post. snicker Not to minimize the input of my
ideas: I am representing exacly how I think about the issue! I am just
not hurt at all by the exclusion of my callsign from the list.

---attributes inserted
Say, you weren't striking out at her because she offended you, were
you? Of course not!

That's right.

If Kim's
callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
entirely.

Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
with her about callsign choice.

Thank you. And, I don't think you're a bad person, either; nor are you
my enemy.

---attributes inserted
Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
friends a heck of a lot better than that!

I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a
very select few.
"Acquaintance" would be more accurate.

Exactly. Very few people are those whom I would consider "friends."
Certainly not someone I only have interaction with over the computer or
even amateur radio.

---attributes inserted
What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by
determining how I can post here.

Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.

Not what I'm doing.

On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have
the killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!

Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone
from posting anyhting?

You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur
radio operators in a list where you treated them differently (by
listing them with a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of
my callsign, me from being viewed as an amateur radio among other
amateur radio operators in a list in which such omission could easily
be taken out of context, I might add.

---attributes inserted
Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
you did!

I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.

Intentional deletion of
her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as
a reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.

I disagree.

Sorry to hear that!

Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS.
IMHO YMMV

And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a
problem with.

So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me
that I have to.

Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called
'access covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male
bias').

I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on
Usenet as a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I
*must* post in a certain way. Why?

Please see the above comments.

I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word

[slang word deleted]

...because you personally have an issue with it! See?

Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's not a
birdwatcher.

I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but
she just might be!

Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:

1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny

2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of
reactions

Oh, I thought you were going to say that my two, obvious, prominent
reasons were my tits. Because those were the two obvious, prominent
reasons =:o

---attribute inserted
She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.

Uh, what does a picture of me, driving a car, from the shoulder area
up, have to do with my tits? Don't tell me you could "tell" by that
picture that I had big tits! Oh, no! It's worse than I thought! ; )

That'd be about like Larry being able to tell I'm fat (which I'm not)
just by looking at that picture!

---attributes inserted
Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.

I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.

Yes you did!

No, I did not.

Kim, I believe....

I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....

Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur
radio - as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for
example.

This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have
refused to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of
insulting names -

Then your issue is with them.

---attributes inserted
and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
disrespectful.

And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?

There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double
standard.

Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
typing it, I'm sure I don't know.

I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.

That's a good "Kim" response! GRIN

---attributes inserted
Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!

Then why not choose another one?
---attributes inserted

Oh goodness!!! My callsign is so uniquely me how could I ever do that?

Whatever it it, I hope you are able
to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call,
and you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.

I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right
to force *me* to use it here on Usenet.

However, you did not let anyone know, up front when the poll was first
issued, that any inappropriateness would be looked for and dealt with
accordingly. I submitted a prediction and do have the right and, feel
correctly, expectation that my prediction would be listed just like
every other amateur radio operator's.

My behavior on this newsgroup has always been blunt and honest. You
could have even publicly said something to me about my callsign not be
included and, as I would expect from you, asking if I would like not to
particpate. That would have been so Jim/N2EY that I believe I have come
to know. But, for some reason, your exhibited nature was not
forthcoming here, and I don't know why--may not even be anything to it.
But, I can see you posting a reply to my prediction that you would not
be including my callsign--and would I like to withdraw.

---attributes inserted
Or do they?

Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!

But you want to force your values on me.

Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone
*must* include that word or phrase in any replies?

Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....

I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!

Thanks for the validation, Leo!

Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections for dinner,
and they're my favourite! :)

Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Now, for the real reason I decided to engage as I have the last couple
of weeks. Remember, Jim, how I used to get so insulted when you would
seem to "lead" someone into a corner they could not get out of? Well,
this thread, and the lack of your treating my submission as any other
amateur radio operator's became my path to doing the same thing to you.
Not out of meanness, mind you, not at all. Out of pure fun.

I feel you do lead, by way of artful argument by the way, people into
corners they don't think they can get out of. This was my answer to
that--because I really do feel I waited long enough (practically a
year), acted often enough (giving you every opportunity to act as I
would have thought you would act, and participated strictly as a
submitter (I engaged in no comments until recently, and those only to
request that you include my submission with my callsign). It is even
uncharacteristic of me to get involved to this level (being listed
among the debaters over the CW testing issue) with this topic.

As I said, I would have thought of your nature that you would see my
submission, and let me know that you would list it but without my
callsign, and give me the opportunity to withdraw inclusion. Does
anyone else agree that this would have been something one could
reasonably have expected from Jim?

Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really
do have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you
should have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list.
But, my greater purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated
feeling I used to have when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get
out of. Maybe you don't feel boxed...but you sure were getting
defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at least it looked that way to me
in this post!

Kim W5TIT!!!!!!!

Bingo! Jim is very skilled at debating, but this time he has outsmarted
himself.

Alun N3KIP