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.

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.

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.
Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

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.

Dave K8MN

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

Kim W5TIT wrote:

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

Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear
like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had
sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had
also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration:

I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and
have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking
the time to gather the facts.

Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you
wrote it.

That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct
things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him.

It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They
exist. They can't now be denied.

Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I have a bandwagon?

For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that
a
post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with
my
callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at
best, to
display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

That's simply incorrect.

Let's do another example for purposes of illustration:

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.

If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration
added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments,
I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came
from you. Are you starting to get the picture?

However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars
in
some display of dislike for me--then go for it.

No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line
between what's right and what's wrong.

Dave K8MN


Live with it, Dave, live with it...

I have no problem living with it, Kim. After all, it was a factual
account of what took place. I even provided two very good illustrations
for your benefit. As to the reality that you still don't seem to get
it, I can live with that too.

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...


I just applied their logic to the message at hand.



- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, the PCTA double standard defies logic.

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.


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?

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.


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.


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"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.
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.

Yet, Dave persists in defending the topic from the angle of it having had
more to do with my callsign! He's managing to achieve nothing but tripping
over his own self.

Kim W5TIT

"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. 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!

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


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.


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.


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.

Dave K8MN


Do you practice being an asshole, Dave? You must...because you're nearly
perfect at it.

Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

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.
Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.


Oh puhleeze, Dave. Live with the fallout!?! It's an amateur radio
callsign! Not a GD BOD decision! ROFLMAO!!!

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.

Dave K8MN


Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...

I don't recall anyone saying anything about your call being "sexual". I
remember "tasteless", "tacky" and "inappropriate" being used. I recall
seeing the word "vulgar". Your latest reason for choosing your call
pretty much says it all.


Ummmm, do you change bottles of liquor at least once in a while, Dave? My
"latest reason" for choosing my callsign is the same as the "earlier
reasons."

Get a grip, Dave...it'll be much more enjoyable. Dare. Dare to live a
little.

Kim W5TIT

"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.

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!

Kim W5TIT