On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:08:38 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

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.

Yup - certainly no one could fault you for taking offense to this - as
it is intended to be an offense.

But that wasn't what I ws writing about, was it? This just happened
now, I theenk...

Dave K8MN

73, Leo

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:56:26 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

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?

it is refreshing to see that there are other issues which command your
attention, Dave - but this statement refers to the issue being
discussed, Dave. All of the text that follows that statement,
actually.

Sorry I forgot the colon at the end of the sentence - I'll try to
remember it for you next time!


I have a nice life, thanks.

Idyllic, in fact, save for a lawn full of hypothetical dog
droppings....glad to hear it!


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?

Because it's obvious, Dave. Like jumping up in a crowded movie
theater and exclaiming "Hey! I'm in a movie theater!"

See also "duh!"

Similar to "No (expletive deleted) !" (which is, unfortunately, more
than you can say for your hypothetical lawn!)


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.

I have. How about you?

Or are you still looking for a question 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.


Good for you!

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.

Dictionaries are funny things, Dave - kinda like restaurant menus.
When you are provided with multiple choices (or definitions, in the
case of the dictionary), it is indeed unusual to choose 'all of them'.

But, hey go for it - you really hate that callsign, right! After all,
it's a Big Issue!

Pick 'em all.

Tasteless could mean 'inappropriate'.

It surely could.

Absolutely. It could mean a Big Mac, too.


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?

Just asking...you provided me with a whole whack of definitions, I was
just trying to see which one fir best!


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

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

Well, you're the first one to step up and call it objectionable - good
for you.

Now if you can just find some way to convince the Government that you
should be the successor to Mr. Powell, you could impose that belief
upon the FCC, and actually do something about it!

Until then, it's OK. Nice and legal. Like all of the others.



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.

Say - didn't you just jump in a while ago?


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?

That's a great idea, Dave - it might help you to understand others a
bit better, and socialize a bit? Unless of course you don't like
diversity - is that it, Dave?

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.

Oh - sorry, I thought that there might be a connection between the
two. My mistake


"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'm suggesting that blathering your negative opinion of Kim, and her
callsign, in a public forum is boorish behaviour, Dave. (say, that
would be vulgar behaviour, from the definition of vulgar, wouldn't
it?)

I'm attempting to draw a parallel between the standards of good
behaviour and conduct detailed in that code to the real world, Dave.
You know, being a good neighbour and citizen and stuff.

I'm so glad I could help to clear that one up for you.


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...

One at a time, Dave - one at a time....


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"?

Well, "Dave", I didn't say it was "amateur radio" - just that you
might be "on the air". You know, EM radiation and stuff?

My apologies - I'll try to keep it simpler for you in future.


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.

You most certainly did not.

But you have it, all the same.


It's vulgar to you, perhaps.

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

Good for you, Dave.


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.


So what? It ain't up to you to set the standards for public decency,
Dave. Just in your own world. Not mine.Jot everybody else's.

Yours.

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?

Not at all, Dave.

This duh's for you!


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".

I thought so too, "Dave"! Except for my definition of "operates" -
that is. That one's a good one.

Are you telepathic? Can you read the thoughts I'm
sending your way at this moment?

Yes. You are wondering where you left your garage door opener.

It's on the table next to the stairs, Dave. Right next to your keys.


receiving transmission

You're welcome, Dave.


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?

That's quite the fixation that you have on Kim, Dave. Probably
unhealthy, too.

No, everything does not center on Kim.

Sure does. It questions how you interpret the concept of 'operating',
as stated in the code. From a technical or human interaction
perspective, or both.


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?


That's silly, Dave.

For the purposes of this question, it's your office - please answer
the question. (hint: it's a hypothetical office).

Or, simplified for you, do you feel that you only have to act in a
civil manner on the air - and nowhere else?

Or - It's OK for someone to be an Amateur Extra on the air, and Alpha
Hotel anywhere else?

Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so! (that's a reference to
Shoeless Joe, Dave - not Joe the amateur - or Kim)


Or here, for that matter.

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

In this group - yes, she stated something to that effect.

Mine - naw.

Not by you!


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.

I did not start out discussing all of the issues that you point out,
Dave. When I wrote to Jim, he explained that it was only the callsign
that he had an issue with, and not the individual. That is why my
discussion focusses on the callsign issue only.

You sound like you find more than just the callsign vulgar, though -
sorry I can't help you with that! That ain't my issue.

Like I said earlier, if you want to discuss a different issue, start a
new thread.


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.

Doesn't matter, Dave - they exist.

Must be hard to keep up....so much evil, so little time....


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

73, Leo

PS - are you using the two new Q-signals yet?

QKS (as a question) - Please do not send Kim's callsign. Please?
QKS (as a reply) - OK, I will not send Kim's callsign.

LOL!

On 18 Jan 2004 20:34:08 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

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 ! :-)

Steven Segal....an interesting combunation of technical excellence and
bad acting.

Hmmm.........


LHA / WMD

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:08:38 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

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.

Yup - certainly no one could fault you for taking offense to this - as
it is intended to be an offense.

But that wasn't what I ws writing about, was it? This just happened
now, I theenk...

Dave K8MN

73, Leo


It was designed to convince Dave that he is absolutely correct--I have
nothing else to do but thumb my nose to him and the world, look for
attention and offend people. ; ) Yyyyeeeahhhh....rrrrright!

Kim W5TIT--Gotta git busy, it's a very large world out there

In article , Leo
writes:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:56:26 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

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?

it is refreshing to see that there are other issues which command your
attention, Dave - but this statement refers to the issue being
discussed, Dave. All of the text that follows that statement,
actually.

Sorry I forgot the colon at the end of the sentence - I'll try to
remember it for you next time!

It is vital and important that you remember colons for Dave.

Whenever he comes into the newsgroup he develops IBS,
Irritable Bowel Syndrome...

LHA / WMD

In article , Leo
writes:

On 18 Jan 2004 20:34:08 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

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 ! :-)

Steven Segal....an interesting combunation of technical excellence and
bad acting.

Hmmm.........

In here he has little technical excellence and very bad acting.

He gets by with Special Effects... :-)

LHA / WMD

William wrote:

I know about you, Dave.

It would be difficult to accept this one. From your previous posts, it
isn't clear that you know much about anything.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

I know about you, Dave.

It would be difficult to accept this one. From your previous posts, it
isn't clear that you know much about anything.

Dave K8MN

Ah, more smugness.

You don't have to accept it. Your acceptance or rejection alters nothing.

Thinking that it does is just smug.