![]() |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 WA2ISE: August 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 WA2ISE: August 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008 Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else? 73 de Jim, N2EY Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. Dave K8MN |
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is another. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in
: Dwight Stewart wrote: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is another. Dave K8MN I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant. You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you? As for the lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no comment? If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by saying nothing. Alun, N3KIP |
"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political correctness by those people. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about their own character. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dave Heil" wrote Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that. Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right. Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right. Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right. YMMV. That's your right. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. If Jim does not want to use Kim's callsign, he doesn't have to.I don't have a problem with it, but some people do. Even so, if she wishes to change the post, she should not put it in as if Jim posted it. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. If I were in this situation, I would post a polite note with my callsign, and not post it as if Jim did the posting. I know until I looked back up at the from area on the screen, I though it was from Jim. I dobt any of us wants our posts altered. We could eventually get like the crazies thaat post here from tim to time. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political correctness by those people. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about their own character. Regardless of the reasoning, do you concur with altering peoples posts to reflect your own wishes? - Mike KB3EIA |
Alun wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in : Dwight Stewart wrote: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 Kim: June 1, 2008 Kim W5TIT wrote: (snip) WK3C: December 30, 2004 N8UZE: July 1, 2005 KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 W5TIT: June 1, 2008 "Dave Heil" wrote: Kim, Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your character. I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated. Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct. I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous. You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is another. Dave K8MN I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant. You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you? I might not have chosen a call like Kim's? I flat out didn't choose a call like Kim's. I can honestly say that I would not change the post of another to make it appear that the original poster had written something different than what was originally posted. As for the lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no comment? I have no doubt at all that anything Kim would have written would have been worse than no comment. If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by saying nothing. I've not known Kim to be bound by politeness. Dave K8MN |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com