Jim,

My comments are below:

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. That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
well! Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
personal morals and prejudices upon others? Did anyone here ask you
to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
offensive? Certainly not.


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!

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

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

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

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

Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right? 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'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. 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!

If you met Dick Van Dyke in person one day, would you refuse to
address him as anything other than 'Richard', because you felt that
his parents made an inappropriate choice? Of course not! That's
silly.


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

Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
to. As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
vanity callsign, just like you! (and, up here, VE7TIT, VE3TIT and
VE2TIT - all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).


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? 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. 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.


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!

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

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 would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word "tit". Those
posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.

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

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

73, Leo


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.


Of *course* it's my perception--and *that's* the only one that counts, from
my perspective.


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

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


That was *your* perception, not my intention.


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.


It may have looked that way to a lot of folks. However, quick observation
(to an astute individual anyway) revealed the [refrain: sarcasm and
demonstrated indignation with which that entire action was meant to relay].


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.


You've been disrespectful since you began posting that list without my
callsign. I daresay you made a conscious to *be* disrespectful when you did
that: as evidenced by your statement, something to the effect of you could
not believe no one has noticed it until now.


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

Done. No problem.


Good.


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.


And, what if I suddenly decided that you made an inappropriate choice about
something and decided to start calling you George, or Stan because I think
"Jim" is too disrespectful for the community of man? My callsign *may* (and
I wholeheartedly disagree with you) be inappropriate for amateur radio;
however, it is my callsign. You have at times offered to communicate with
me over the amateur bands, Jim. Did you intend on embarking upon a
communication refraining from using my callsign? THAT would be entirely
unacceptable to me. Would you throw away a QSL card from me?

If you are so affected by my callsign, why do you stop at just refusing to
"print" or enter it somewhere? If you object enough to demonstrate *any*
disrespect/shunning--whatever--then you should shun totally. You
demonstrated that you will only act upon your belief to the point at which
it is convenient for you.


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


And, I thnk you are totally incorrect about that. Each of us being better
at some things than others is exactly what makes us all equal in the wash.
I am exactly as important to my company as the CEO; in different aspects,
but nonetheless we are each as important as the other. The *only*
difference between me and the CEO of my company is that he makes more money
than I do. I am just as liable for actions and decisions I take at my
company as he/she is. I am just as able to be terminated as he/she is. I
am just as replaceable as he/she is. Each and every amateur is equal to the
next.


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.


As I said, if you are so fixated upon demonstrating by deletion of my
callsign; then I dare you to carry further with that an shun me totally. In
fact, I implore it of you! It totally has me upset to think that you are so
affected, yet you communicate with me. (for those "unastute": that was
sarcasm)


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

73 de Jim, N2EY


Oh, blah, blah, blah....

Kim W5TIT

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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

Of course not.

But you have no negative comments for the person who does it.

But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others?

Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to the ARS.

Do you think all possible callsigns are appropriate, Dwight?

Last year the treaty was changed so that hams can now be issued calls with
four-letter suffixes (like W3PENN, for example). Think of what could be
done with some of the combinations.

Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).

Why should such a request be honored? Is it against FCC rules for me to
omit a callsign in a Usenet post?

You have had no problem when others have used insulting names rather than
callsigns to refer to me, but when I use Kim's name instead of callsign you
tell me what I should do. Looks like a double standard to me.

Kim has been asked to choose a more appropriate callsign. She has
refused, which is her right, of course. Just as it is my right to avoid
that callsign and others like it when possible.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article k.net,
"KØHB" writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote

Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them?

Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
that.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

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

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

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

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

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

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

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

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

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

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

Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
right.

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

YMMV. That's your right.

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


You're kidding, right?

About what?

Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

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

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

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your posts,
Alun?

Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
didn't notice.

But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's.

Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?

But I'm not an Internet cop.

Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
very prominently displayed to me.

Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

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

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

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

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


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


Howzat?

That's NOT in "UNIX format," Mike...you are NOT giving the right
attribute line prefixes!!!

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Kind of like:

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

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

Mike...the quote-formatting standard originated on ARPANET
when USENET began there. Old stuff. Been there, done that.

It is a common-use standard, not a legal, lawful one.

5 minutes in the penalty box just because...

LHA

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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


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

...it might have been a Preview of Coming Attractions advertising
a new Sermon on the Antenna Mount by Rev. Jim. :-)

Hans is right. A bunch of sanctimonious Church Ladies trying to
manufacture disputes with their production lines all broken down.

LHA

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article k.net,
"KØHB" writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote

Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them?

Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
that.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

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

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

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

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

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

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

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

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

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

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

Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
right.

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

YMMV. That's your right.

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


You're kidding, right?

About what?

About thinking no-one had noticed. I think if you actually asked you would
find that we all noticed


Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

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

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

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your
posts, Alun?


Probably about the same as it would be if they left my callsign out of a
list of callsigns and put my name in instead.

Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we didn't notice.

But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's.

Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?

Because the FCC issued it


But I'm not an Internet cop.

Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without
adding anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In
fact I can skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually
do, unless I need to go back and get the context. And the name of the
actual sender is very prominently displayed to me.

Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it
was from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake.
Granted different people don't see the same screen, as they are using
different newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

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

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY




Jim, leaving Kim's callsign out of the list was calculated to annoy her.
There's little point complaining that she didn't like it and acted
accordingly.

FYI, both my G calls end in VUK, which is a banned combination on car
licence plates in the same country, apparently due to similarity with the
F*** word. G8VUK was sequentially issued. G0VUK was not, which apparently
puts me in the same league as Kim.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
K0HB: January 1, 3000

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

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

You're mistaken Jim

How am I mistaken, Hans? Did the new millenium start on January 1, 2000 or
January 1, 2001?

I'll put you on the list for January 1, 3000.

73 de Jim, N2EY