Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

I'm sure you'd rather just respond to French out-of-banders on 6M.

How could you be sure of that, Brian?

I can be sure of that because of three of your postings.

1. You posted saying that you worked French amateurs where they have
no 6M authorizations.

Not exactly correct, is it, Brian? I wrote that French amateurs had
called me and that I'd worked them below 50.200.

Dave, I've googled it up before. Your turn.

2. You later stated that you would continue to do so because you have
no responsibility for where bootleg French hams want to operate.

I have no responsibility to ensure that any station I work is entitled
to use the piece of spectrum he occupies. The responsibility for being
where he's supposed to be lies entirely with the individual operating.
How is it that you find the concept difficult?

Unrepentant sinner.

And 3. You stated that you'd be happy to tune right by a legally
licensed American amateur because your're not required to respond.

Having read and memorized Part 97, can you quote the portion requiring
us to call any station or to respond to a call from another station?

Such as the possibility of ignoring out of band Frenchmen?

That is how I can be sure.

You had only three things to add up. You still arrived at the wrong
answer.

Nope.

Did you have a point about Kim's
callsign?

Yes. It is legal and valid, but you show a preference for out of band
Frenchmen.

Kim's call is legal but in poor taste.

In much better taste than working out of band Frenchmen.

Is there anything else?

There is much else. Keeping searching for knowledge.

I know about you, Dave.

Sayonara.

In article , Leo
writes:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses -
I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Big Dave Sets The Standards!

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.

Pro-code Extras stick together. Morse must be a Crazy Glue.


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

No link is required. Big Dave sets the Standards.

That's IT. Period.


If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Big Dave is defending the Virtue of ham radio. He IS ham radio.
Anything resembling a "slight" against ham radio calls Him to
Action...


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there.......

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!

Irrelevant, Leo. If Big Dave thinks so, it IS. No arguments.


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she
and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada.

Speaking of personal prerogatives - that one is mine. I don't need
you analyzing my call to see if it meets your standards of decency,
"Dave"....

Sorry to add to the list of things that you don't know.

Dave was with the Government...He's here to help...


As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

You think?

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.

Please don't ask Dave such things. That only means a
continuation of ORDERS from high above and many more
posts condemning us ordinary mortals to vulgar and tacky
status.


"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

Choosy mothers choose Jif...


That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

That ain't the standard that I referred to, Dave. Here it is again,
in case you missed it the first time:

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....
That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

Flexible as in yours to choose to adhere to at your own
convenience........

I don't think anyone is allowed to be "flexible." In the USA all
amateurs must adhere to a Rigid, Inflexible Way Of Amateur Life.
Dave tells everyone what connotes "flexiblity." [very little]

Rubber is a flexible substance. We cannot use rubber. Rubber is
a vulgar and tacky term, one of many not allowed in ham raddio.

Ergo, "flexibility" is not allowed. All must remain Rigid, Inflexible.

Ooops..."rigid" is a vulgar and tacky term. Cancel "rigid."

No one can "erect" an antenna either, let alone "raise it up."
Vulgar. Tacky. Tasteless.

LHA / WMD

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Hoo boy indeed. Are you in disagreement with my statement?

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

Raisin or bran muffin? Bran.

There's a question for you along with the answer. No input on your part
is necessary.

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.

Then when did you start calling him "Dave"? I think you're beginning to
get tangled in your own words. Maybe you'd like to take another look at
your post.


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

"Vulgar" works for me. From the Random House College Dictionary:
"vulgar adj. 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding
or taste; unrefined; crude.

I also like "tacky" and "tasteless". There have been a number of other
words used to describe it.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

I have.

If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Smiley aside, you did suggest that I start another thread.

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there.......

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Then why do you continue to make comments on that particular issue?

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!

In essence, "Leo", that is your point, that Jim should avoid hurting
Kim's feelings by not using her call, the call that he finds
objectionable.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada.

Speaking of personal prerogatives - that one is mine. I don't need
you analyzing my call to see if it meets your standards of decency,
"Dave"....

You don't need?

Sorry to add to the list of things that you don't know.

There are many things unknown to me, "Leo". Not knowing your call, your
location or your name aren't things high on my list.

As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

You think?

Quite often

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.

Just tell us how you interpreted it and we'll proceed from there.

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

I use microphones, keyboards and keys on the air, "Leo". I don't don't
use any of them in my amateur radio operations to lessen the pleasure of
others.

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

Thousands? I think you vastly overestimate the readership of this
newsgroup--and this isn't "on the air", Leo. Usenet isn't amateur
radio.

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

I don't know what the "Duh" signifies, "Leo". You seemed to have
problems understanding my lack of obligation to use Kim's vulgar
callsign. Nothing requires me to use it anywhere.

That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

That ain't the standard that I referred to, Dave. Here it is again,
in case you missed it the first time:

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....
That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

Flexible as in yours to choose to adhere to at your own
convenience........

Let's see. I don't approve of Kim's callsign here. I don't approve of
Kim's callsign on the air. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a
car license plate. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a cap. What
you'd like to do is take an item from Paul Segal's code, an item which
is very specific and change it to suit your argument. It can't be
done. It very clearly says "operates". Now I'm quite confident that
"operates" doesn't mean "operates heavy equipment", "operates a computer
connected to the internet", "operates a convenience store" or "operates
on a patient".

You persist in calling my views inconsiderate. I don't agree. I've
considered. Now you're a "Leo"-come-lately so you've apparently not
been exposed to Kim's views on proper social behavior. If you like, you
can hit the Google archives and check them out. I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...

I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.

Dave K8MN


You keep mentioning this "thumbing my nose at the world" Dave. And, you are
absolutely correct in that assessment of me. I am probably not able to be
pinned into any particular mold. And, sorry you have a problem with that,
but the greatest minds and achievers in this world saw through your "mold"
concept.

I almost deliberately depart from tradition and mundane ways of doing
things. I thoroughly immerse myself in the doings and thoughts of others,
and I am truly, truly excited by the potential I see in nearly everyone. I
also thoroughly enjoy approaching people like yourself with such vague
attitude that you can't help but get offended. That is my mission for
you--to offend you. Because at least it breaks up your boring and mundane
day...

Kim W5TIT

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Big Dave Sets The Standards!

Big Dave certainly sets Big Dave's standards, Little Leonard.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

No link is required. Big Dave sets the Standards.

That's IT. Period.

More civil debate of the elimination or morse testing, Little Leonard?
That's where you attempt to set the standards for something in which you
are not at all involved.

If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Big Dave is defending the Virtue of ham radio. He IS ham radio.
Anything resembling a "slight" against ham radio calls Him to
Action...

Why, Little Leonard, I am certainly a part of amateur radio. You
aren't.

Please continue with your civil debate of the elimination of morse
testing.

Dave K8MN

Dave, have a nice life and do try not to be too upset by

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:55:01 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Hoo boy indeed. Are you in disagreement with my statement?

Not at all. Just amazed that you are so adamant about it, Dave.

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

Raisin or bran muffin? Bran.

There's a question for you along with the answer. No input on your part
is necessary.

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.

Oops - my error, Dave.

Do you want to answer the question? Please feel free to do so!


Then when did you start calling him "Dave"? I think you're beginning to
get tangled in your own words. Maybe you'd like to take another look at
your post.


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

"Vulgar" works for me. From the Random House College Dictionary:
"vulgar adj. 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding
or taste; unrefined; crude.

That's one meaning, Dave - here are all of 'em:

1. Crudely indecent.

2. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
3. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish. See Synonyms at common.
4. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious:
the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
5. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people;
vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
6. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.


I also like "tacky" and "tasteless". There have been a number of other
words used to describe it.

Tacky and tasteless are indeed synonyms - vulgar can be different.
Might just mean 'common'. Or 'ostentatious'.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

I have.

Sort of. They can be different concepts.

Tasteless could mean 'inappropriate'.

Vulgar can too, or could mean 'objectionable'. Or something else. Not
all at the same time, though.

Which is it - inappropriate or objectionable? Or ostentatious - I
like that one best


If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Smiley aside, you did suggest that I start another thread.

Yup - I sure did!


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there.......

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Then why do you continue to make comments on that particular issue?

???

Read on, Dave...


Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!

In essence, "Leo", that is your point, that Jim should avoid hurting
Kim's feelings by not using her call, the call that he finds
objectionable.

Nope - my point is that omitting just one call in a list was not the
polite way to handle the situation, Dave. If one feels that strongly
about one "inappropriate' call, then leave 'em all out. Treats
everyone as equals, Dave.


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada.

Speaking of personal prerogatives - that one is mine. I don't need
you analyzing my call to see if it meets your standards of decency,
"Dave"....

You don't need?

I most assuredly do not, Dave!


Sorry to add to the list of things that you don't know.

There are many things unknown to me, "Leo". Not knowing your call, your
location or your name aren't things high on my list.

Whew! - that's a relief. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that

Seemed important to you earlier, though, Dave - I'm glad that you have
found peace with it.


As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

You think?

Quite often

About what? Callsigns, and their probable hidden "dirty' meanings?



Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.

Just tell us how you interpreted it and we'll proceed from there.

Rather obvious, isn't it Dave? Please advise where I went wrong.

Feel free to use this quotation from Kim from the Pool thread when you
reply: (helpful hint - she was writing with reference to the deletion
of her callsign in the Pool posting....)

"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."

Gee, I guess that she was referring to something else....


"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

I use microphones, keyboards and keys on the air, "Leo". I don't don't
use any of them in my amateur radio operations to lessen the pleasure of
others.

OK, not on the air, then - just here, perhaps. Apparently, the medium
determines the standards of appropriate behaviour: no wires, good;
wires, bad.

I see.

I'll probably never know, though - I have no desire to work you on the
air, as I find your attitude towards others inappropriate for Amateur
Radio


To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

Thousands? I think you vastly overestimate the readership of this
newsgroup--and this isn't "on the air", Leo. Usenet isn't amateur
radio.

This Usenet group is carried on thousands of servers all over the
world, Dave. And no, it isn't amateur radio - but I'll bet most of
the readers of this group are amateurs, or are at least interested in
the hobby!

BTW, part of it might be on the air, Dave - a great deal of telecom
backbone networks are carried by microwave or satellite links..


But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

I don't know what the "Duh" signifies, "Leo". You seemed to have
problems understanding my lack of obligation to use Kim's vulgar
callsign. Nothing requires me to use it anywhere.

OK, don't use it then. It's vulgar to you, perhaps. Not necessarily
to me. It's just a callsign, Dave. Worst case, it's about breasts. So
what - some of my best friends have breasts.

And, duh means duh. Duh. Somewhat synonomous with "obviously...", but
a tad more condescending in common application.

That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

That ain't the standard that I referred to, Dave. Here it is again,
in case you missed it the first time:

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....
That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

Flexible as in yours to choose to adhere to at your own
convenience........

Let's see. I don't approve of Kim's callsign here. I don't approve of
Kim's callsign on the air. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a
car license plate. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a cap. What
you'd like to do is take an item from Paul Segal's code, an item which
is very specific and change it to suit your argument. It can't be
done. It very clearly says "operates". Now I'm quite confident that
"operates" doesn't mean "operates heavy equipment", "operates a computer
connected to the internet", "operates a convenience store" or "operates
on a patient".

Say, Dave, you're beginning to sould a bit like Dr. Seuss there!

Dave, would you like W5TIT with that?

I would not, could not, on a cap,
I would not, could not, on RRAP,
I would not have it on a plate,
I would not 'cause I'd hate that plate!
I would not use it on the air,
I would not use it ANYWHERE!!!

I don't care if Katey Segal wrote the code, Dave - I interpret
"operates" in the context of my inference as "communicates to others",
Dave. It's part of the package.

Or does it simply refer to the technical side of operating - that is,
it's OK to treat someone poorly on the air so long as you use
technical accuracy in operating your station? "Sure, I told that jerk
off big time on 40 last night, but my SWR was under 1.1, my intermod
was 60dB, and my signal was clean with no key clicks!"

And is it any different when you are at the office? "I gave that
moron in Accounting a piece of my mind - we weren't on the air, you
know!"

Or here, for that matter.


You persist in calling my views inconsiderate. I don't agree. I've
considered. Now you're a "Leo"-come-lately so you've apparently not
been exposed to Kim's views on proper social behavior. If you like, you
can hit the Google archives and check them out. I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.

I see. I'm confused, though - are you saying that the callsign is
vulgar? Or the holder of the callsign? Please clarify.

You are aware that there are a whole pile of vanity calls out there
which are much more explicit than this one - it must be challenging
screening them all out before deciding to talk to 'em on the air,
Dave. 'Cause they might mean something 'bad'. In many different
languages, too!

Maybe you should hire an admin assistant for your shack!


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

Dave, have a nice life and do try not to be too upset by

....the developing nuclear capabilities of North Korea? another
terrorist attack? Hilary Clinton?

I have a nice life, thanks.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:55:01 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Hoo boy indeed. Are you in disagreement with my statement?

Not at all. Just amazed that you are so adamant about it, Dave.

If you aren't in disagreement, why are you amazed that I'd state it?

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

Raisin or bran muffin? Bran.

There's a question for you along with the answer. No input on your part
is necessary.

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.

Oops - my error, Dave.

Do you want to answer the question? Please feel free to do so!

It seems that you already found an answer which pleases you.

Then when did you start calling him "Dave"? I think you're beginning to
get tangled in your own words. Maybe you'd like to take another look at
your post.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

"Vulgar" works for me. From the Random House College Dictionary:
"vulgar adj. 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding
or taste; unrefined; crude.

That's one meaning, Dave - here are all of 'em:

1. Crudely indecent.

2. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
3. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish. See Synonyms at common.
4. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious:
the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
5. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people;
vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
6. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.


I also like "tacky" and "tasteless". There have been a number of other
words used to describe it. You can add definitions 2,3 and 4 if you like. I'll go along with them.

Tacky and tasteless are indeed synonyms - vulgar can be different.
Might just mean 'common'. Or 'ostentatious'.

I've used all of those terms in describing Kim's choice of callsigns.
Others have used additional words to convey their feelings on the
matter.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

I have.

Sort of. They can be different concepts.

I've used a number of terms. I meant all of them.

Tasteless could mean 'inappropriate'.

It surely could.

Vulgar can too, or could mean 'objectionable'. Or something else. Not
all at the same time, though.

It surely could. Did you you believe that I meant something else,
especially after I provided you with a definition?

Which is it - inappropriate or objectionable? Or ostentatious - I
like that one best

"Inappropriate" and "objectionable" are both fine with me.


If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Smiley aside, you did suggest that I start another thread.

Yup - I sure did!

Then my comment about you stepping into something and attempting to
direct stands.

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!

In essence, "Leo", that is your point, that Jim should avoid hurting
Kim's feelings by not using her call, the call that he finds
objectionable.

Nope - my point is that omitting just one call in a list was not the
polite way to handle the situation, Dave. If one feels that strongly
about one "inappropriate' call, then leave 'em all out. Treats
everyone as equals, Dave.

Very touchy-feely and all-inclusive of you, "Leo". Let's all get
together and celebrate our diversity, shall we?

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.

Just tell us how you interpreted it and we'll proceed from there.

Rather obvious, isn't it Dave? Please advise where I went wrong.

Feel free to use this quotation from Kim from the Pool thread when you
reply: (helpful hint - she was writing with reference to the deletion
of her callsign in the Pool posting....)

"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."

Gee, I guess that she was referring to something else....

I see Kim indicating that her feelings were hurt; Her self-esteem took a
hit.

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

I use microphones, keyboards and keys on the air, "Leo". I don't don't
use any of them in my amateur radio operations to lessen the pleasure of
others.

OK, not on the air, then - just here, perhaps. Apparently, the medium
determines the standards of appropriate behaviour: no wires, good;
wires, bad.

I see.

No, you don't. The code says what it says. You are attempting a
stretch.
You're also attempting to use that code to state that it is improper for
me to voice disapproval over Kim's choice here or to ignore her on the
air because of that disapproval. You're attempting to use that code to
tell Jim that he should either use Kim's call or not use any calls. Is
that about it?

I'll probably never know, though - I have no desire to work you on the
air, as I find your attitude towards others inappropriate for Amateur
Radio

Now if you could only do something about the attitude of others...

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

Thousands? I think you vastly overestimate the readership of this
newsgroup--and this isn't "on the air", Leo. Usenet isn't amateur
radio.

This Usenet group is carried on thousands of servers all over the
world, Dave. And no, it isn't amateur radio - but I'll bet most of
the readers of this group are amateurs, or are at least interested in
the hobby!

BTW, part of it might be on the air, Dave - a great deal of telecom
backbone networks are carried by microwave or satellite links..

What call do you sign in those instances, "Leo"?

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

I don't know what the "Duh" signifies, "Leo". You seemed to have
problems understanding my lack of obligation to use Kim's vulgar
callsign. Nothing requires me to use it anywhere.

OK, don't use it then.

I didn't require your permission.

It's vulgar to you, perhaps.

No, I find it vulgar. There's no "perhaps" about it.

Not necessarily
to me. It's just a callsign, Dave. Worst case, it's about breasts. So
what - some of my best friends have breasts.

I'm sure that you've noted that I am not the only person posting her to
find Kim's choice of vanity calls objectionable.

And, duh means duh. Duh. Somewhat synonomous with "obviously...", but
a tad more condescending in common application.

But you seemed to voice disagreement with my statement earlier. Now
you've agreed. Was the "duh" intended for yourself?

Let's see. I don't approve of Kim's callsign here. I don't approve of
Kim's callsign on the air. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a
car license plate. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a cap. What
you'd like to do is take an item from Paul Segal's code, an item which
is very specific and change it to suit your argument. It can't be
done. It very clearly says "operates". Now I'm quite confident that
"operates" doesn't mean "operates heavy equipment", "operates a computer
connected to the internet", "operates a convenience store" or "operates
on a patient".

Say, Dave, you're beginning to sould a bit like Dr. Seuss there!

I would not, could not, on a cap,
I would not, could not, on RRAP,
I would not have it on a plate,
I would not 'cause I'd hate that plate!
I would not use it on the air,
I would not use it ANYWHERE!!!

I don't care if Katey Segal wrote the code, Dave - I interpret
"operates" in the context of my inference as "communicates to others",
Dave. It's part of the package.

That's silly, "Leo". Are you telepathic? Can you read the thoughts I'm
sending your way at this moment?

Or does it simply refer to the technical side of operating - that is,
it's OK to treat someone poorly on the air so long as you use
technical accuracy in operating your station? "Sure, I told that jerk
off big time on 40 last night, but my SWR was under 1.1, my intermod
was 60dB, and my signal was clean with no key clicks!"

I didn't write anything about telling Kim off on the air. Does your
interpretation make any sense to you?

And is it any different when you are at the office? "I gave that
moron in Accounting a piece of my mind - we weren't on the air, you
know!"

I dunno, "Leo". Is the moron in accounting even a ham? Did you lessen
his operating pleasure?

Or here, for that matter.

Has Kim's operating pleaure been lessened? Has yours?

You persist in calling my views inconsiderate. I don't agree. I've
considered. Now you're a "Leo"-come-lately so you've apparently not
been exposed to Kim's views on proper social behavior. If you like, you
can hit the Google archives and check them out. I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.

I see. I'm confused, though - are you saying that the callsign is
vulgar? Or the holder of the callsign? Please clarify.

Read some of Kim's view on what she views as proper social behavior and
decide for yourself. Interesting material will include Kim's idea of
proper behavior at a football game, cocktail party or when driving. You
might also find Kim's comments to W4NTI, K3LT, W0EX, "JJ" or me to be of
interest.

You are aware that there are a whole pile of vanity calls out there
which are much more explicit than this one - it must be challenging
screening them all out before deciding to talk to 'em on the air,
Dave. 'Cause they might mean something 'bad'. In many different
languages, too!

I'm aware that there are other objectionable vanity calls. None of
those individuals have made any posts here in the seven or eight years
I've been here.

Maybe you should hire an admin assistant for your shack!

Naw, most of my extra funds go to that engineer I keep on retainer.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...

I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.


You keep mentioning this "thumbing my nose at the world" Dave. And, you are
absolutely correct in that assessment of me.

I never had any doubts, Kim.

I am probably not able to be
pinned into any particular mold. And, sorry you have a problem with that,
but the greatest minds and achievers in this world saw through your "mold"
concept.

The greatest minds and achievers in the world have been paying attention
to *my mold*? Tell us, Kim, what do THEY think? How did you come to
know them?

I almost deliberately depart from tradition and mundane ways of doing
things. I thoroughly immerse myself in the doings and thoughts of others,
and I am truly, truly excited by the potential I see in nearly everyone.

I don't want you immersed in my thoughts.

I
also thoroughly enjoy approaching people like yourself with such vague
attitude that you can't help but get offended.

I don't have a vague attitude, Kim. Most folks with any brain cells can
determine my attitude without difficulty.

That is my mission for
you--to offend you. Because at least it breaks up your boring and mundane
day...

Well, there you have it. I hope "Leo" is paying attention.

Dave K8MN

In article , Leo
writes:

Say, Dave, you're beginning to sould a bit like Dr. Seuss there!

Dave, would you like W5TIT with that?

I would not, could not, on a cap,
I would not, could not, on RRAP,
I would not have it on a plate,
I would not 'cause I'd hate that plate!
I would not use it on the air,
I would not use it ANYWHERE!!!

I don't care if Katey Segal wrote the code, Dave - I interpret
"operates" in the context of my inference as "communicates to others",
Dave. It's part of the package.

"Katey Segal?" :-)

Big Dave thinks he is Steven Segal ! :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Leo

writes:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but
it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am
discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She
should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Big Dave Sets The Standards!

Big Dave certainly sets Big Dave's standards, Little Leonard.

Big Dave doesn't know when to stop.

ALL must follow and obey Big Dave's likes and dislikes.

Those that do not follow are subjected to the Wrath of Big Dave.

Woe be unto those receiving Wrath. :-)


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

No link is required. Big Dave sets the Standards.

That's IT. Period.

More civil debate of the elimination or morse testing, Little Leonard?
That's where you attempt to set the standards for something in which you
are not at all involved.

Morse code TESTING involves GETTING INTO amateur radio in
the United States.

Since Big Dave has been in amateur radio sooooo long, He has
no business trying to dictate what constitutes GETTING INTO
amateur radio, does He?

Big Dave is very confused (He really needs his monocle prescription
changed). Times have changed. OLD laws aren't applicable any
more. There is NO need to have any morse code test for GETTING
INTO amateur radio.

Big Dave wants to DICTATE who should do what and where.

Dictatorial behavior is not civil.

Dictatorial behavior is that of despots and would-be authorities.

Big Dave is not an authority.

Dictatorial behavior is uncivil, perverse, vulgar, tasteless and tacky.

[let it dry long enough and it won't be tacky...]




If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Big Dave is defending the Virtue of ham radio. He IS ham radio.
Anything resembling a "slight" against ham radio calls Him to
Action...

Why, Little Leonard, I am certainly a part of amateur radio. You
aren't.

Yes, Big Dave, you are certainly a part of the despotic dictatorship
trying to keep everything just the way it was when you jumped
through the hoops.

Inflexible. Unable to bend with the times.

Big Dave tries to create the impression of an Authority Figure. At
best all he can do is press his prussian uniform and impress by
image. Image, not substance.

All Big Dave can do in "discussing" the morse code test issue is
mouth off badness against those against the test. Attempts at
character assassination are his only "discussion" tools.

Very "civil" behavior for a despot, a dictator...in their vulgar,
tasteless, and tacky way.

Is that what happens when amateurs become olde-tymers in
hamme raddio? Not a nice hobby in that case...



Please continue with your civil debate of the elimination of morse
testing.

Why?

There will be NO discussion of any issues.

All there is is a lot of personal pejoratives thrown at the no-code-
test-advocates. Pro-code-test-advocates do not seem to have
any valid arguments in favor of retention. All the pro-coders can
do is trot out a lot of standard boilerplate phrasing that boils down
to "olde-tymers had to test for morse so everyone has to!"

Not a good argument.

LHA / WMD



















"Give a man an inch and he thinks he is a ruler..."