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?

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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".

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.

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. 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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Invalid analogy. "Dick" is a common male nickname.

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.

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

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?

(and, up here,

(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)

all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).

Were those calls sequentially issued?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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

[slang word deleted]

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

Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.

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

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

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.

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.

Or do they?

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

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.

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

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!!!

That was half the point in this case! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun wrote:

(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

Alun, you can google up the background of Kim's call sign if you like.
It *is* a double entendre. I know this and am not particulary troubled
by it. Jim also knows this also, and is.

There is still also the issue of the two nearly identical posts from
the same day. THe difference is that post one is properly attributed,
and the second isn't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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

That was half the point in this case! 8^)

Not at all.

You are just busy swinging your stick, sweetums, because you have
a need to Do Battle.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You make it seem like US ham radio is a bunch of white guys trying
to make out like they are little boy scouts with church ladies as den
mothers.

Prissy pinkness. [Expletive Deleted]

WMD

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY


W5TIT: January 1, 2008. However, I will add this sentence as I desire; I
*DO NOT* wish to be placed into a list under name only. Kim may not be a
ham radio operator. W5TIT is.

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -



'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to
the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world
was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple
of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that
in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!

The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my
callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like
I don't have a callsign?

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -




'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to
the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world
was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple
of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that
in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!

The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my
callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like
I don't have a callsign?

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

"And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
made well.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

(snip)

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


Negative comments had already been posted by others. I don't kick people
when they're already laying on the ground from the blows of others.


Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to
the ARS.

Do you think all possible callsigns are
appropriate, Dwight?


Beyond the law, I don't think it is my mission in life to decide what is
appropriate for others. If I have a problem with the laws (the callsigns
allowed by the FCC), then my fight is with the lawmakers (the FCC). Whatever
the case, I don't take it upon myself to engage in an ongoing campaign
against those who make choices different then my own. Kim is aware of my
opinion about her callsign (I wouldn't have chosen it myself). Beyond that,
the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. If I felt this is a real
problem, I'd take up the issue of callsigns with the FCC.


You have had no problem when others
have used insulting names rather than
callsigns to refer to me, (snip)


I've never seen anyone use insulting names to refer to you.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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....

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.
..
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

Do you not think that singling her out the
way that you did was disrespectful to her?

No.

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'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).

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

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.

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 knowldge 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 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.

(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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.

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

What about *my* feelings?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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
-
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.

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

Then why not choose another one?

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.

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