In article ,
(Brian) writes:

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.

Now there's a smug remark.

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.

And you yours 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.

Similarly, you weren't being courteous to other Tanzanian amateurs by
working Frenchmen out of band on 6M when you held a Tanzanian call,
and subsequently stating that you would continue to do so because you
were within your authorization.

You give Tanzanian amateurs a bad name.

Meanwhile you state you would somehow manage to tune past a legally
issued American callsign, apparently in preference of out of band
Frenchmen on 6M.

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

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here and on the air?

He has NO flaws, Brian...

It seems that you've set yourself up here and on the air to defend bad
taste.

He may have had a run-in with cannibals in an African posting and
therefore rejected. The reason was He tasted bad.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

I just applied their logic to the message at hand.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, the PCTA double standard defies logic.

No, Brian, it's just the Amateur Extra Special Dispensation.

Hypocrisy is practically a catechism with them.

Or catastrophism... :-)

It's in their Him book.

LHA / WMD

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"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.

Herr Robust is without imperfection in that regard...

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you didn't capitalize the "we" fearsome leader!

You speak for the amateur community. Always. Even if the
majority of them do not agree with you...


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 [expletive deleted] Formerly Known As Reverend Jim is acting
as Judge, Jury, and Executioner in this matter.

So are you. Must be that U.S. Amateur Extra Special Dispensation
thing.

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.

How does all that interfere with your life, fearless leader?

Are you on some evangelical crusade to rid the world of horrible
filthy disgusting language that You find offensive in an unmoderated
forum?

Of course you are...throwing your weight around (lots of it)...making
like a control freak on a binge.

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

There shall be NO filthy offensive deragatory words in olde-tyme
hamme raddio sayeth the fearless leader. May all who mention
even remotely related to s*x rot in cb hell?

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.

Leo's morals are a LOT better than the ones you exhibit in here.

A fantastic betterment of the human condition, Herr Robust, much
better than the prussian arrogance of "do like you say."

Wonderful example of olde-tyme hamme raddio you present, Herr
Robust. Makes everyone lust (oops, said an [expletive deleted])
to learn morse code and be a hamme, right? Then they, too, can
be just like You.

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

...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.

What have your comments to do with elimination of morse testing in the
Amateur Radio Service (your only aim here)?

Someone shook your chains?

Are you the Moderator in here? (no, but you like to think so...)

Are you the Supreme Court (or Courtesan) of ham radio? (no, but
you act like it...)

Morse code is the heart and soul of all olde-tyme Hamme raddio
amateurs.

The olde-tyme hamme raddio peoples insist on morse code testing
forever and ever, amen.

What has morse code testing regulations to do with Herr Robust?
Not a single d**n thing.

Peas be unto you, whirled leader.

LHA / WMD

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan 2004 09:15:19 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
Jim,

Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see,
or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim,

[callsign deleted]

Your opinion noted, Leo. However, after much consideration, I do not
consider my omission of Kim's callsign to be disrespectful. YMMV.

As stated before, it wasn't your omission of Kim's callsign that was
disrespectful, it was the context that it was done in - omitting hers,
but leaving everyone else's intact. Repeatedly.

As you are aware.

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

No.


Your statements in defense of your conduct are based entirely upon
circular logic, rationalization, contradiction and denial - indicating
that you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your actions
towards a fellow ham here on the group.

Basically what you are saying is that I should accept Kim's callsign
as appropriate for the ARS, and use it here, because:

1) FCC issued it
2) She asked me to
3) *You* don't 'have a problem' with the callsign, and therefore *I*
shouldn't, either.

No - I said that Kim's callsign IS a valid one, accepted by the FCC
for use in the ARS.

It's a *legal* one. No one disputes that.

Thank you!

You can dislike it, revile it, be insulted by it
- whatever you choose to do. But, you must respect the fact that it
is a valid amateur callsign - because it is! Just like yours, issued
officially by the FCC.

I did not ask for this specific callsign. Kim asked for hers.

Jim, you aren't the guy who gets to determine what is or is not
appropriate for the ARS.

Not true!

We *all* have a say in what is and is not appropriate for the ARS. And that
includes me.

That wasn't the point - I said specifically that you are not the one
who gets to make that decision.

Oh, but the Amateur Formerly Known as Reverend Jim IS ham
radio, therefore he decides what is applicable and what is not.

[it's either that is be caught in a word blizzard of long, long, long
postings or a Sermon On The Antenna Mount]

That role belongs to the regulatory authorities.

And to all of us hams.

No - we can recommend and advise, but the regulatory authorities make
the decision. Not us.

He IS U.S. ham radio. He's said so hisself. :-)

Whatever your problem is with this particular call, it
is between you and the FCC - not us! If they declare that it is
inappropriate, then it will be withdrawn. If not, it stays. Whatever
it is - it's their decision - not yours and mine!

That's only true as far as the issuance of a callsign. Not its use.

Absolutely. But not the point.

The issue is between you and the FCC. They issued it - they can
recall it if it's "inappropriate".

He IS U.S. ham radio. Said so.




As you are aware.

As I have stated before, no disrespect was intended. But I am not
going to use Kim's callsign in my posts, because I think it is
inappropriate for the IRS.

In your opinion, Jim - not necessarily the opinion of the FCC, or many
members of the ARS.

I'm not telling them not to use Kim's callsign.

You are telling me I *must* use it.

Incorrect. Not at all.

That isn't the issue. I said omitting just one callsign from your
post was wrong. No one denies your right to not use it - but you
could have omitted all of them, to level the field. What standards
woul that have compromised, Jim?.

The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim sets the
standards. He does not make mistakes.





Not gonna happen.


However, no one is trying to say that you must
use Kim's callsign in your posts - the issue is with your intentional
exclusion of only her callsign from your list!

Which is the same as saying I *must* use it!

Nope - just omitting call one out of a group was wrong. Disrespectful,
in fact - or at least perceived that way. You could have left all of
the calls out - then it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Cannot be!


As you are aware.

You can use it in your posts all you want. So can Kim. I won't try to
impose my standards on others, even though they try to impose their
standards on me.

No one is attempting to impose standards upon you, Jim.

Yes, they are.

Nope - not at all.


The message
was (quite clearly) that it is inappropriate and disrespectful to omit
just this one callsign from the pool, while leaving all others intact.
As you well know. And as clearly stated in previous posts.

As you are aware.

"inappropriate and disrespectful" by whose standards?

Answer: YOURS!

Not just mine - as you are aware.


[Kim a licensed radio amateur]

told you straight up that she felt disrespected by your actions.

I have felt disrespected by her action in choosing that callsign.
I told her that straight up a long time ago.

Not sure I understand why you would feel personally disrespected by
Kim's choice of callsign, Jim - I don't imagine that she did it to
offend you personally.

She didn't. But that was my perception. And to paraphrase Kim: 'that's the
perception that counts'

You are of course free to express your opinion regarding this issue,
however - but to do so in public isn't always a wise choice. Would
you walk up to someone in a crowded mall and tell her exactly what you
thought about their skitr being too short?

Depends on who it was.

Sidestepping the issue.

Not Him! :-)

But, no matter who she was, would you say it in front of a crowd of
people? Or discreetly?


Of course not - that would
be impolite. And not too smart, perhaps - she might smack you!

What if it was my teenage daughter? (Not saying I do or do not have one).

Different scenario entirely. Parental control gives you the right to
do so.

But, would you say it in front of a crowd of people? Or discreetly?


Some opinions are best kept to one's self

And some are best expressed rather than repressed.

Not in a public forum, Jim.


A simple apology to her would have been appropriate.

I apologize if my posts have upset anyone. That was not the intent.
But I will not compromise my standards on this to avoid hurting
someone's feelings.

The right thing to do.

In your opinion. Mine's different.

Compromising standards isn't the issue, Jim. As you are aware.

No, it's *exactly* the issue. To use Kim's call here would compromise my
standards.

Nope - it is not the issue. The point was not that you refused to use
it - simply that you singled her out in a list of other calls.
Intentionally and repeatedly.

Under vows of ham priesthood He may not make use of [expletive
deleted] words.

No matter. He IS U.S. ham radio.


If you had changed your poll to list everyone by their first name,
would that have compromised your standards? Of course not. It would
have created a Level Playing Field, and caused little fuss at all.

It would have caused confusion because there are several people with
the same first name here.

It would have removed the opportunity for you to try and punish Kim
for her poor choice of callsign, though - say, you weren't trying to
do that, were you?

Nope.


Really? Didn't look that way. Say, didn't you agree with Kim that
"perception is everything"?

Of course not - your standards are too high for
that......aren't they?

Yep.

Of course!


Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here
yourself - frankly, you should know better.

Where is the insult in not using a word or phrase I think is
inappropriate?

As stated above, and in previous posts - it is a situational thing.
For example, yelling "Hey, Dick!" to a friend sitting over at a bar is
quite appropriate. Yelling "Hey, Dick!" to some biker sitting at the
bar is not.

What if that's the biker's name?

Sidestepping the issue. And potentially suicidal


Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is
everything!


As you are aware.

Yet yelling both phrases is *legal* - although not always
advisable or appropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.


And in the context of amateur radio callsigns, I think Kim's choice
of callsign is inadvisable and inappropriate.

Your own logic proves it.

Sidestepping the issue.


Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the
act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric.

I don't see it that way at all.

Do you believe that these
actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur
service?

Yes. You may disagree, but I will not describe that disagreement
as "prejudice", "censorship" or "self-serving rhetoric".

What part of this statement are you having trouble with, Jim?

The words ""prejudice", "censorship" and "self-serving rhetoric", for a
start.
They are inaccurate

Definitions (and specific usage within the thread):

Prejudice: "an opinion formed beforehand" (your opinion that the
callsign

[inappropriate callsign deleted]

is inappropriate to the ARS)

It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the
callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues.

Therefore, it's not prejudice.

I see. So it's not just the callsign that you find inappropriate, but
the owner and other issues?

Please elaborate!


Censorship: "the supression of something considered objectionable"
(like the intentional omission of just one callsign in a list,
perhaps?)

I use the word "inappropriate", not "objectionable". And I did not
"suppress" it - I just won't put it in a post of mine.

Do you not also find it objectionable? Or are you playing semantics
again?


Therefore, it's not censorship.

Disagree - see above!


Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem)

The phrase was "self-serving rhetoric", not just the word "rhetoric".

AHEM.

You mean it isn't? Seems to be!

I suspect that few here join you in that belief.

Doesn't matter.

It certainly should!

So you're saying the majority opinion should rule? What if
the majority says it's inappropriate?

Do they?


Your quote below is quite appropriate. At times, Dr. King
held standards and beliefs that were not popular. His adherence to those
standards and beliefs was considered "insulting" by some. Should he have
listened to them, or followed his conscience?

Dr. King was a champion of equality and equal rights - a mission which
cost him his life. He was dedicated to ensuring that people were
treated equally, regardless of the "personal standards" of those who
felt that they were not entitled to equal treatment.

Equal rights under law. Equal opportunities. Not equal results. Not
an abandonment of standards.

Actually, the upholding of standards...but this isn't about standards,
Jim. It's about singling someone out intentionally. And
disrespectfully.


Do you treat everyone equally, Jim?

I treat them appropriately. What is appropriate for an adult is not
appropriate for a child. To treat them equally could be very unsafe.

Avoiding the question.


Even when you have a strong bias
against some characteristic of theirs that you find objectionable? No
matter what?

The only bias I have is in my Southgate Type 7.


I'd refrain from drawing parallels to Dr. King until you can state
that unequivocally. Without prejudice.

I state without prejudice that I don't have the bias you accuse me of.
I have standards that I adhere to.

Your actions speak differently.


"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy."

Rev. Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

And at this 'time of challenge and controversy', I say that Kim's
callsign is inappropriate to the ARS, and I will not repeat it
in my posts. No insult is meant by this action. But it will not
change.

Once again, no one is forcing you to use the dreaded callsign in your
posts. Again, Jim, the issue is singling out one individual because
there is something that you don't like personally! As you well know.

One's principles and beliefs, however righteous and sacrosanct, do not
convey the right to treat others disrespectfully.

Some people said that when people organized marches and protests against
things that violated *their standards*, they were acting disrespectfully.

True enough. Not directly related to this one single solitary isssue
that we're discussing here, though, is it? Nope.


To return to the quotation from Dr. King - in this time of challenge
and controversy, someone might choose to admit that they was wrong in
singling out one individual due to personal opinion, and revise his
list to indicate equal respect for the status of all participants.
Someone else might choose to twist the words and concepts around ad
infinitum to justify their actions. Still another would take the moral
high ground, and justify their actions based on rigorous personal
standards and ideals.

Which of these represents the Right Thing To Do? I know.

And by saying you know, you are doing exactly what you describe.

A puzzling response, Jim - I'm an Option 1 kind of guy myself.

How about you? A bit 2, a little 3 maybe....


So do you, Jim.

I don't use the term "friend" to describe Kim, because she reserves
that word for a very select group, and I respect that choice of hers.

But I will say that one of the characteristics of a true friend is
telling the truth as the true friend sees it, even if it is not
what someone wants to hear, and even if a person may get their
feelings hurt or feel insulted by that truth.

An excellent homily, Jim - but with a fatal flaw. True friends would
conduct this level of personal information interchange only in
private, and with compassion, sensitivity and dignity. A true friend
would not choose to do that in a public forum, would they, Jim?

Some would. I did. So did Kim, and so have you. And while I respect
Kim's use of the word "friend", I would say that the honesty and openness
here - even in disagreement - are the actions of "true friends".

One last sidestep for the road, Jim? Honesty and openness isn't what
your actions were about, now were they?

Be honest. And do try to stick to the facts!

Must be an Arthur Murray dropout with all the side steps being
practiced.

He IS U.S. ham radio. One may not disagree with Him.

U.S. Amateur Extras do not make mistakes. They have Special
Dispensation for whatever they do.

LHA / WMD

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


So let me get this straight. Newsgroup rules are cool to be broken?


Far as I know, there are no Newsgroup rules, only habits and widely accepted
conventions. Any one who takes exception to exceptions, is certain to
accumulate an exceptional quantity of exceptions. If you are starting a
collection, I have included three above.

That is SO exceptional! :-)

LHA / WMD

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Just do it till you need glasses, Hans.


I'm already wearing tri-focals.

dit dit, de Hans, K0HB

I find the progressive lenses much more comfortable and useful myself.

In an effort to be convivial, double-D sounds off like she has a pair!

LHA / WMD

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

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


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

Kim W5TIT

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

You think?

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

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

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

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

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

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.

*Wink* and *chuckle* on your part noted.


Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

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

So the Mark Twain quote isn't an accurate assessment of humankind?

Dave K8MN