Kim W5TIT wrote:

"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.

No kidding? Do you think that putting to rest any comparitive tie
between your action and Jim's could be on my agenda. Be sure to mark
down "pointing out Kim's lack of good judgement in choosing her
callsign" as an item on my 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.

Your callsign is linked to the matter to which you've objected: that
someone refuses to type your callsign in a newsgroup post. Your
followup was to alter one of his posts to make it appear that he'd used
your callsign.

Yet, Dave persists in defending the topic from the angle of it having had
more to do with my callsign!

Defending the topic? I'm not defending a topic, Kim.

He's managing to achieve nothing but tripping
over his own self.

Your inability to comprehend doesn't equate to my tripping over
anything.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"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.

Oh no, Kim. See some of Len Anderson's wordy posts for examples of
pontification.

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!

If you knew what you'd done, you'd not have attempted to equate your
changing of an attribution with Jim's omission of your callsign.
The rest of your talk about trumping, impact and unwillingness to change
anything you've done is simply confirmation of your thumbing your nose
at the world.


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

I have it. You are simply wrong in trying to equate the two.

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.

....then you simply don't understand "standard conventions" in newsgroup
posting. Nothing in what Jim did misleads anyone.


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.

Yes, your callsign is right square in the middle of all of this.


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.

Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand?


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.

Do you practice being an

[word deleted]

, Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it.

What experience qualifies you to assess such perfection, Kim?

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"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.

I might be, Kim. Why not attempt to explain it to me? How do you
commune with God without praying?

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!

I didn't say I'd pray for you, Kim. I asked why I should do it if you
aren't willing to take on the task yourself?

Care to explain how I am being vindictive? I don't see you as
vindicable.

Dave K8MN

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

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.

Not at all, Dave. Not an expert at all - just someone who believes in
treating people fairly, and isn't easily offended by mere words.

Keep the condolences, though.



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.

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.

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

That was a smile, Dave - what wink and chuckle? Kim replied with some
valuable insight on this comment - please read what she wrote in her
previous post, and do your best to empathize with her reply.



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?

It is, unfortunately. Did you read my reply, though? - I'll post it
again so you can have another run at it:

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

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
news
On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )


Just for the record, my opinion is that it is Jim's list and he has the
right to set it up anyway he wishes, whether that is names, callsigns, or a
mix. His list, his choice.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

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.

Or, "I have given some thought to my choice of working Frenchmen out
of band on 6M, and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice
reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual."

Dave, do you recognize yourself in this alternative scenario?

You had a chance to use the technique I illustrated for Kim. You hosed
it up.

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

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

No.

Unfortunately, the Gutenberg press doesn't lend itself to the full
range of human vocal expression and we often infer emotion based upon
prior typed exchanges with our victims.

Who do you know who is currently using a Gutenberg press, Brian?

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

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

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".

If you were to tell me that you prayed for me, I would thank you. But
I would wonder if God listened to smug prayers.

I didn't offer, nor did I publish any of my prayers. You can wonder but
you can't know.

Dave K8MN

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"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



There are sometimes easily spotted clues. For example, anyone who has
received their first license after about 1994 in the contiguous 48 states
and that first license was a Tech or General will have a 2x3 call unless
they have a vanity call or upgraded to Advanced or Extra and got a new
sequential one from those pools. The sequentially assigned 1x3s disappeared
in most call areas by the end of 1994 though some areas may have had a few
still available for a year or so after that.

For example, I recieved my call in 1993 and you can see that in call area 8
we were close to the end of the sequentially assigned 1x3s beginning with N.
The sequentially assigned 1x3s beginning with K or W had been used up some
years before that.

Or you could just look it up in the FCC database.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Regardless, lets get to the basics of
this issue. What is wrong with the
word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as
a noun meaning "either of two soft
fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs
on the chest of a woman." Seem rather
innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like
most women, has those "soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs." So
why would so many be offended by her
very mention of that fact? It's not like
she's refering to the sexual organs
or something.


Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight.
The term is vulgar slang (snip)

Vulgar is very much in the eyes of the beholder, dependant on how the word
is used and who uses it.

How right you are. A number of beholders have deemed Kim's call vulgar.
I'm one of them.

But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar,
especially in an innocuous radio callsign.

That is apparent.

Would you be so offended if it
had been issued by the FCC at random? Would you be so offended if it had
been selected by a man?

Yes to both.

In the end, it appears to me that most are
complaining simply because a woman selected a callsign which highlights a
unique aspect of womanhood. Perhaps these guys are jealous that woman have
those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs" and they don't. Tit
envy?

You really think in that way? Do you think I'd approve if Kim had
chosen a vulgar name for a male body part to use as the suffix of her
call?

Maybe you're the kind of fellow who
would be proud to have his wife, mother
or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not.

I wouldn't even attempt to tell my wife, mother, or adult daughter, which
callsign to select for themselves. All of these women clearly have enough
intelligence to select the callsign they want, whatever it might be.

Excellent dodge of the statement, Dwight. You might have a future in
politics.

Dave K8MN