Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

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

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


ROFLMAO!! Know what it sounds like to me? Sounds like Dave has an agenda.

No kidding? Do you think that putting to rest any comparitive tie
between your action and Jim's could be on my agenda. Be sure to mark
down "pointing out Kim's lack of good judgement in choosing her
callsign" as an item on my agenda.


The dialogue on this thread that has just been winding down the past couple
of days has less to do with my callsign than it did with overall practices
in newsgroups.

Your callsign is linked to the matter to which you've objected: that
someone refuses to type your callsign in a newsgroup post. Your
followup was to alter one of his posts to make it appear that he'd used
your callsign.

Yet, Dave persists in defending the topic from the angle of it having had
more to do with my callsign!

Defending the topic? I'm not defending a topic, Kim.

He's managing to achieve nothing but tripping
over his own self.

Your inability to comprehend doesn't equate to my tripping over
anything.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...


Actually, you still don't understand what you did. Jim did not change
what you wrote. His actions/comments were clearly his. You changed an
attribution. Jim did not.


And, you're still pontificating, Dave.

Oh no, Kim. See some of Len Anderson's wordy posts for examples of
pontification.

How many times have I clearly
stated: I know what I did, I know what I did trumped what Jim did (i.e., had
greater impact on everyone), and I'll state now I don't think I'd change a
thing about doing it--three ways--again!

If you knew what you'd done, you'd not have attempted to equate your
changing of an attribution with Jim's omission of your callsign.
The rest of your talk about trumping, impact and unwillingness to change
anything you've done is simply confirmation of your thumbing your nose
at the world.


To me, attributes, or deleting things such as signatures and things from
tracking mechanisms, are equal. Got it?

I have it. You are simply wrong in trying to equate the two.

No difference in either action to
be determined as "wrong." Each is an insult, each is astray from standard
conventions of newsgroup submissions, and each have the same potential to
mislead, or at least misdirect, the readers of that post.

....then you simply don't understand "standard conventions" in newsgroup
posting. Nothing in what Jim did misleads anyone.


IS NOT Jim showing the same disrespect for Kim in this case as he
shows
for Kim in his posts where he does not type her callsign?


I don't think the justification for the action needs to be included in the
dialogue. As I stated in another post, regardless of reason, *both* are
wrong. I refuse to continue to get wrapped up in this being about my
callsign--it is not.

Yes, your callsign is right square in the middle of all of this.


Therefore IT FOLLOWS that Jim MUST *always* make *full* attributes to
Kim exactly as she typed her post, with no deletions to content that
he
finds objectionable.

Any less would be disrepectful.


Good luck with this one.

Luck has nothing to do with it. Jim sees it quite differently, and I
see it
that he does just as he's accused me of doing.

No, he hasn't. I presented you with two illustrative example of what
you did. Jim did not do the same as you did at all.


You fall way short, Dave, of being able to *present* anything.

Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand?


But, to me, I got my point
across and the posts get too long to continue the discussion ;)

It's hard for you to get your "point" across when you still don't
understand what you did.

Do you practice being an

[word deleted]

, Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it.

What experience qualifies you to assess such perfection, Kim?

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

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

Ahem...at least he hasn't said he's going to "pray for you" yet. I
love
it
when someone says that to me with that certain "tone of voice" LOL

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

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays?

Sure it has, Kim. Why should I pray for you if you're not even going to
tackle it yourself? After all, If I prayed for you and told you so,
you'd simply think I was someone with that "certain tone of voice".

Dave K8MN


Praying is of little significance to me, in communing with God, Dave. But,
you're so shallow, I'm quite sure you are completely incapable of
understanding anything like that.

I might be, Kim. Why not attempt to explain it to me? How do you
commune with God without praying?

Oh, and please, don't pray for me. Most people who say things like that are
saying it to be vindictive---OH, that's right!!! You are being vindictive!

I didn't say I'd pray for you, Kim. I asked why I should do it if you
aren't willing to take on the task yourself?

Care to explain how I am being vindictive? I don't see you as
vindicable.

Dave K8MN

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:

Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

Not at all - you have missed the point entirely. My condolences.

Yes, that looks like your mode: instant expert; proposals that we accept
what we find in bad taste. Your condolences aren't needed.

Not at all, Dave. Not an expert at all - just someone who believes in
treating people fairly, and isn't easily offended by mere words.

Keep the condolences, though.



I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

You think? :)

Yes, I do. You must not think so as you "expected better" than for him
to do so.

You think? :)

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

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.

And two wrongs somehow make a right? Of course she singled herself
out with that call. So what? Does that make her a "bad person",
somehow unfit for common courtesy, Dave?

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.



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:

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

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... :) )


Just for the record, my opinion is that it is Jim's list and he has the
right to set it up anyway he wishes, whether that is names, callsigns, or a
mix. His list, his choice.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

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

Or, "I have given some thought to my choice of working Frenchmen out
of band on 6M, and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice
reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual."

Dave, do you recognize yourself in this alternative scenario?

You had a chance to use the technique I illustrated for Kim. You hosed
it up.

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

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

No.

Unfortunately, the Gutenberg press doesn't lend itself to the full
range of human vocal expression and we often infer emotion based upon
prior typed exchanges with our victims.

Who do you know who is currently using a Gutenberg press, Brian?

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays?

Sure it has, Kim. Why should I pray for you if you're not even going to
tackle it yourself? After all, If I prayed for you and told you so,
you'd simply think I was someone with that "certain tone of voice".

If you were to tell me that you prayed for me, I would thank you. But
I would wonder if God listened to smug prayers.

I didn't offer, nor did I publish any of my prayers. You can wonder but
you can't know.

Dave K8MN

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...

A friend, a very long time ham with a "W" call, suggested my callsign.
He
liked the "W5" part (same as a call he had years ago, I think) and
thought
the "net" part was cute because of my long computer experience (I was
helping him with his computer at the time).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I never even realized your call was a vanity call, Dwight. And, neat that
you came up with something creative!

Kim W5TIT



There are sometimes easily spotted clues. For example, anyone who has
received their first license after about 1994 in the contiguous 48 states
and that first license was a Tech or General will have a 2x3 call unless
they have a vanity call or upgraded to Advanced or Extra and got a new
sequential one from those pools. The sequentially assigned 1x3s disappeared
in most call areas by the end of 1994 though some areas may have had a few
still available for a year or so after that.

For example, I recieved my call in 1993 and you can see that in call area 8
we were close to the end of the sequentially assigned 1x3s beginning with N.
The sequentially assigned 1x3s beginning with K or W had been used up some
years before that.

Or you could just look it up in the FCC database.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

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


Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight.
The term is vulgar slang (snip)

Vulgar is very much in the eyes of the beholder, dependant on how the word
is used and who uses it.

How right you are. A number of beholders have deemed Kim's call vulgar.
I'm one of them.

But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar,
especially in an innocuous radio callsign.

That is apparent.

Would you be so offended if it
had been issued by the FCC at random? Would you be so offended if it had
been selected by a man?

Yes to both.

In the end, it appears to me that most are
complaining simply because a woman selected a callsign which highlights a
unique aspect of womanhood. Perhaps these guys are jealous that woman have
those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs" and they don't. Tit
envy?

You really think in that way? Do you think I'd approve if Kim had
chosen a vulgar name for a male body part to use as the suffix of her
call?

Maybe you're the kind of fellow who
would be proud to have his wife, mother
or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not.

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.

Dave K8MN

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:19:16 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:
snip

Do you practice being an

[word deleted]

, Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it.

What experience qualifies you to assess such perfection, Kim?

Um, one doesn't have to be a professional hockey player to appreciate
the talent of a Wayne Gretzky, do they?


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

I never even realized your call was
a vanity call, Dwight. (snip)


I wanted a callsign that said something about me, not just a number with a
random group of letters. It's also easier for others (and me on bad days) to
remember. Anyway, as Dee noted, it's fairly easy to spot a vanity call once
you know what to look for.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dave Heil" wrote:

You really think in that way? Do
you think I'd approve if Kim had
chosen a vulgar name for a male
body part to use as the suffix of
her call?


Luckily, we have fewer "vulgar" body parts to worry about. Men have
chests too, but that somehow escaped being vulgar. As my wife would say,
perhaps because men mostly decided what is vulgar over the years. As a
result, chests with protrusions are vulgar (with special little names like
"tits"), while those without protrusions are not.


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


No, I'm a little too opinionated for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

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

No.

Unfortunately, the Gutenberg press doesn't lend itself to the full
range of human vocal expression and we often infer emotion based upon
prior typed exchanges with our victims.

Who do you know who is currently using a Gutenberg press, Brian?

Dave K8MN

Dave, why does your communication present itself in font format? Are
you using a Gootenburg press?

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand?

At the end of the day, we learn that only Dave has understanding and
everyone else has problems.

Why is that so laughable?

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

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

Or, "I have given some thought to my choice of working Frenchmen out
of band on 6M, and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice
reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual."

Dave, do you recognize yourself in this alternative scenario?

You had a chance to use the technique I illustrated for Kim. You hosed
it up.

Dave K8MN

You also had the opportunity to use this technique. You smugged it up.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...

A friend, a very long time ham with a "W" call, suggested my
callsign.
He
liked the "W5" part (same as a call he had years ago, I think) and
thought
the "net" part was cute because of my long computer experience (I was
helping him with his computer at the time).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I never even realized your call was a vanity call, Dwight. And, neat
that
you came up with something creative!

Kim W5TIT



There are sometimes easily spotted clues. For example, anyone who has
received their first license after about 1994 in the contiguous 48 states
and that first license was a Tech or General will have a 2x3 call unless
they have a vanity call or upgraded to Advanced or Extra and got a new
sequential one from those pools. The sequentially assigned 1x3s
disappeared
in most call areas by the end of 1994 though some areas may have had a few
still available for a year or so after that.

For example, I recieved my call in 1993 and you can see that in call area
8
we were close to the end of the sequentially assigned 1x3s beginning with
N.
The sequentially assigned 1x3s beginning with K or W had been used up some
years before that.

Or you could just look it up in the FCC database.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Precisely. But, I generally don't give second thoughts to the age,
origination, or type of call someone has... Dwight shared that his is a
vanity callsign. I think his choice is neat, but haven't been inspired to
"lookup" someone's call to glean information about it.

But, good information...

Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:


Maybe you're the kind of fellow who
would be proud to have his wife, mother
or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not.

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.

Dave K8MN

Only Dave Heil could see a direct response to a statement as a "dodge."
Hilarious...

Kim W5TIT

In article , Leo
writes:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:19:16 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:
snip

Do you practice being an

[word deleted]

, Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it.

What experience qualifies you to assess such perfection, Kim?

Um, one doesn't have to be a professional hockey player to appreciate
the talent of a Wayne Gretzky, do they?

Big Dave has a curious set of "qualifications" on almost
everything.

For example, Dave thinks "interest in radio" is manifest by learning
and using morse code. He will accept NO other "interest," not
even those who got into electronics and radio as a professional
career.

If Big Dave thinks something is "tasteless and tacky," then ALL
must think so...or be judged inferior, themselves without taste
or morals.

Big Dave's standard of excellence in everything is Big Dave. He
sets himself up as the Role Model in all things. There shall be
No Variation. Everything prim and proper, sexless in fact.

Big Dave isn't into electronic homebrewing. If he was, he would
have to handle "nuts" and "screws" and other [expletive deleted]
fasteners. He couldn't bear to think of using a "screw driver" or
a wire cutter ("dikes" - yikes). Insulated wire cannot be
"stripped." Such is tasteless and tacky.

Hiram forbid that any of his equipment pops fuses. He
couldn't bear to think of "blowing" a fuse! [that's tasteless and
tacky, if not obscene]

LHA / WMD

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".

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

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
"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


Hans, Bill, would you do so even after you knew their 6M authorizations?

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

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.

Kim:

That's right, because living up to other people's expectations or standards
is what normal, intelligent, polite, and socially acceptable people do. You
have given more than adequate evidence to the fact that you are none of
the above.

I have no problem at all with your opinion, the opinion of Larry Roll, the
opinion of your wife.

Which is where you fall down, Kim. Anyone with a conscience would
care very much what people like JJ, Mrs. JJ, and I think of them.

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.

I would hardly refer to what Riley Hollingsworth so elequently stated as
bringing the ARS "...one step closer to extinction" as "living life
beautifully."
That is the perverted construct of an equally perverted mind.

But, it takes a lot of work and self-reflection to get there.

I don't think the request of a sexually-suggestive and clearly offensive
amateur radio callsign requires much work or self-reflection. All it requires
is a bad attitude and a willingness to cheapen one's self and all other
amateur radio operators -- particularly YL's. Obviously you are up to that
particular challenge, but it doesn't reflect anything positive about your
personality or character.

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.

On the contrary, Kim, I'd say that you have behaving like an asshole down
to an art.

So, tell your wife that I totally respect her opinion--but that is as far as
it goes.

JJ's XYL doesn't require your respect, and I'm sure she doesn't expect it.
Moreover, the fact that you offer it may even offend her.

I don't "need" the attention of anyone.

In spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

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'm sure all of this exists primarily in your own mind. It would be
very interesting to have a private conversation with your close acquaintences
and co-workers. I'm sure that they would be quite ready to paint an entirely
different picture of one Kim Walker, W5TIT.

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?

All I can say is, your husband is either a saint, or a wretchedly desperate
person who can not do any better than to be involved with a totally self-
absorbed, selfish, and inconsiderate person such as you appear to be.
After all, even after having your choice of a call sign condemned by one
of the FCC's top officials, you still refuse to "take the hint" and change it
to something more acceptable. Therefore, one can only draw the
conclusion that you think that you are a law onto yourself, and that you
have every right to do as you please, when you please -- even if it means
giving an unfavorable image to 750,000-plus U.S. radio amateurs. And
the fact that you have done so willingly and by your own request only
makes you look all the worse.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

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

I assume you mean those who dance is sleeazy bars, where you can often
be found. Not dancers who have class.

who are in magazines like Hustler, Playboy and Playgirl; who lead a
risque life, etc., are all "totally lacking in taste."

You mean women who pose naked with legs spread wide? Yes she does and I
do as well.

I don't

Why does that not supprise me?

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.

People like "us" have standards, whereas you obviously don't have any
standards to live up to.

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.

People who do such things would be embarrased if they had any taste,
class or standards.

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.

It is easy to stay in the gutter and just make excuses.

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?

I guess he likes short and dumpy.

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


The Texas TWIT wrote:
I have no problem at all with your opinion, the opinion of Larry Roll, the
opinion of your wife.


Which is where you fall down, Kim. Anyone with a conscience would
care very much what people like JJ, Mrs. JJ, and I think of them.

Larry, this a major problem with our society today, people like kim who
don't care what anyone else thinks. Just as long as they can do whatever
they want and get what they want.


JJ's XYL doesn't require your respect, and I'm sure she doesn't expect it.
Moreover, the fact that you offer it may even offend her.

You got that right!

All I can say is, your husband is either a saint, or a wretchedly desperate
person who can not do any better than to be involved with a totally self-
absorbed, selfish, and inconsiderate person such as you appear to be.
After all, even after having your choice of a call sign condemned by one
of the FCC's top officials, you still refuse to "take the hint" and change it
to something more acceptable.

People of kim's status, never seem to "take the hint", it completely
escapes them.

"JJ" wrote:

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".


My wife's consistent response to the ongoing debate about Kim's callsign
is, "who cares?" In short, with all the things going on in the world today,
she thinks it is absolutely amazing that so many would waste time discussing
a trivial issue like this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"William" wrote

Hans, Bill, would you do so even after you knew their 6M
authorizations?

They're responsible for observing their band limits. I'm responsible
for observing mine.

WFWL.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

PS: For more info on your namesake, Little Billy Beeper, go here.
http://www.handiham.org//article.php?sid=160

(You're welcome!)

Keep deluding yourself in your grandeur, Larry! ROFLMAO!

Kim W5TIT


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

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.

Kim:

That's right, because living up to other people's expectations or
standards
is what normal, intelligent, polite, and socially acceptable people do.
You
have given more than adequate evidence to the fact that you are none of
the above.

I have no problem at all with your opinion, the opinion of Larry Roll,
the
opinion of your wife.

Which is where you fall down, Kim. Anyone with a conscience would
care very much what people like JJ, Mrs. JJ, and I think of them.

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.

I would hardly refer to what Riley Hollingsworth so elequently stated as
bringing the ARS "...one step closer to extinction" as "living life
beautifully."
That is the perverted construct of an equally perverted mind.

But, it takes a lot of work and self-reflection to get there.

I don't think the request of a sexually-suggestive and clearly offensive
amateur radio callsign requires much work or self-reflection. All it
requires
is a bad attitude and a willingness to cheapen one's self and all other
amateur radio operators -- particularly YL's. Obviously you are up to
that
particular challenge, but it doesn't reflect anything positive about your
personality or character.

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.

On the contrary, Kim, I'd say that you have behaving like an asshole down
to an art.

So, tell your wife that I totally respect her opinion--but that is as far
as
it goes.

JJ's XYL doesn't require your respect, and I'm sure she doesn't expect it.
Moreover, the fact that you offer it may even offend her.

I don't "need" the attention of anyone.

In spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

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'm sure all of this exists primarily in your own mind. It would be
very interesting to have a private conversation with your close
acquaintences
and co-workers. I'm sure that they would be quite ready to paint an
entirely
different picture of one Kim Walker, W5TIT.

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?

All I can say is, your husband is either a saint, or a wretchedly
desperate
person who can not do any better than to be involved with a totally self-
absorbed, selfish, and inconsiderate person such as you appear to be.
After all, even after having your choice of a call sign condemned by one
of the FCC's top officials, you still refuse to "take the hint" and change
it
to something more acceptable. Therefore, one can only draw the
conclusion that you think that you are a law onto yourself, and that you
have every right to do as you please, when you please -- even if it means
giving an unfavorable image to 750,000-plus U.S. radio amateurs. And
the fact that you have done so willingly and by your own request only
makes you look all the worse.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

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".


My wife's consistent response to the ongoing debate about Kim's callsign
is, "who cares?" In short, with all the things going on in the world
today,
she thinks it is absolutely amazing that so many would waste time
discussing
a trivial issue like this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Actually, Dwight, the only "place" that my callsign gets so much discussion
is right here in this newsgroup. I have been involved in a lot of stuff
since I've had this callsign--on the air, off the air, women and men, served
agencies, hundreds of other amateurs. No where, once, did my callsign ever
get discussed, and there was plenty of opportunity.

I am a in-your-face kind of person. It's obvious there's folks in this
newsgroup who can't handle that. My callsign is but one aspect of my
character and personality--both of which are unquestionable in matters that
count. I have that opinion of myself because I believe in myself due to the
encouragement, respect, appreciation, thoughtfulness and even admiration of
people in my life and all around my life.

Oh, wait, there was *one* time when I got an email from a club president who
made a comment to the negative about my callsign--*after* I'd withdrawn as a
member for pointing out that he was not abiding by club bylaws and would not
even discuss the matter. He'd had no problem with me, my rabble rousing, or
my money and time donations for two years previous...

Kim W5TIT