The Pool

[N2EY]

In article >, Alun Palmer
> writes:

>> Actually, Alun, I'd say it was the other way around. The shouting is
>> all overand the test continues until the paperwork is completed.
>
>Good one!

I thought you'd like it.
>
>>> The unanimously agreed
>>> language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it
>>> optional.
>>
>> Maybe that's a solution for the FCC. Have code tests at 5, 13 and 20
>> wpm. Just make them optional.
>
>I think that would be fine, but I don't think the FCC would go for it.

WA2ISE's idea has merit. Might be a way to get widespread support.
>
>>> It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows
>>> those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without
>>> it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also
>>> allowing every other country to dump CW teasting.
>>
>> We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
>> through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
>> than a year from today.

>I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular
>date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.
>
K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Jim Hampton]

Jim,

Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>
> K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03

[Alun Palmer]

"Jim Hampton" > wrote in
:

> Jim,
>
> Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)
>
>
> 73 from Rochester, NY
> Jim AA2QA
>
>
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03
>
>
>

I'm going for May 1, 2004

[N2EY]

In article >, "Jim Hampton"
> writes:

>Jim,
>
>Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)
>
Nobody has it yet, so it's yours!

So far:

K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

"Dick Carroll;" > wrote in message >...
> Jim Hampton wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)
> >
>
> Dang, you beat me out, Jim! Seems FCC likes April Fools Day when it
> comes to the ARS. Tha last slam was on April 1, 2000 IFIRC.

If you mean the recent restructuring - that was April 15, 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Dave Heil]

N2EY wrote:
>
> So far:
>
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004

I think you guys are being too optimistic. Odds are that Anderson won't
attempt obtaining an amateur license before sometime in 2011.

Dave K8MN

[Dave Heil]

Dave Heil wrote:
>
> N2EY wrote:
> >
> > So far:
> >
> > K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> > AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> > N2EY: April 15, 2004
> > N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>
> I think you guys are being too optimistic. Odds are that Anderson won't
> attempt obtaining an amateur license before sometime in 2011.

Never mind. I thought this was the "When will Len Anderson deign
amateur radio with his presence" pool.

Dave K8MN

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Alun Palmer
> > writes:
>
> >
> >>> It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows
> >>> those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without
> >>> it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also
> >>> allowing every other country to dump CW teasting.
> >>
> >> We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
> >> through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
> >> than a year from today.
>
> >I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a
particular
> >date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.
> >
> K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

OK. So we're picking dates for when the CW requirement (as it exists now)
will be dropped? Gosh. I think it's going to take a lot longer than a
year. Let's say five years; so, by June of 2008.

Heh heh, the real test here is whether many of us will be around RRAP to
roundabout on it when it happens, unless it does happen in the short term.

Kim W5TIT

[N2EY]

In article >, Alun Palmer
> writes:

>Well Kim, the ITU have actually abolished it effective July 5th, 2003. Do
>you really think it will take the FCC five years to implement? I don't
>think that even they are that slow!

Kim has a point, Alun, but I think 5 years is a bit much. Look how long it took
'em to do the Restructuring. And we're still waiting on some NPRMs.

But I'm sticking with the date I posted. Less than a year.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[lk]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
om...
> So far:
>
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8EPO: Dec 20, 2003

Larry

[N2EY]

In article >, "Kim" >
writes:

>We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
>amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."

There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
treaty ratification.

>Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do with
>how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.

Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil, nada.

The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're
talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
reversing itself.

--

So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

[Bert Craig]

"lk" > wrote in message
...
>
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> om...
> > So far:
> >
> > K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> > AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> > N2EY: April 15, 2004
> > N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8EPO: Dec 20, 2003
WA2SI: Sept 13, 2003
>
> Larry

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

[Robert Casey]

N2EY wrote:

>The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
>kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
>keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're
>talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
>reversing itself.
>
>
If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes.

[N2EY]

In article >, "Kim" <dont >
writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Kim" >
>> writes:
>>
>> >We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
>> >amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."
>>
>> There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
>> treaty ratification.
>>
>> >Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do
>> >with how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
>>
>> Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
>>nada.
>
>True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
>there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
>requriement--in some form or another.

The majority of comments to the Restructuring were for at least two code
speeds. FCC said no.

IMHO the majority opinion today, even among those who haven't taken a code
test, is that Element 1 should stay. But there is no requirement that FCC
follow majority opinion.

And we may not even get the chance to express an opinion. Once the treaty is
ratified, FCC has the authority to simply dump Element 1 with no NPRM or NOI.
>
>The pity is that we must go through this again.

Tell it to those who will write the proposals to dump Element 1

>The amateur community is
>still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.

Heck, there are some who are not over the changes of 1968-69 - even though they
were not hams back then!

You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed and
enacted.

>> The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason
>> FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC
>> to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
>> we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical
and
>> reversing itself.
>
>heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right?

Yes and no ;-)

>The FCC is a government entity=large corporate entity. Right?

Right.

>At least that's the way I see it. I
>wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside
>the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on
>organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than
>a year!
>
All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving in
the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.

Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
sight.

Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
>> --
>>
>> So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>> WWHD
>>
>
>OK, what is WWHD?

Send me an email. I won't abuse or share the address.

73 de Jim, N2EY
>

[N2EY]

In article >, Robert Casey
> writes:

>N2EY wrote:
>
>>The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
>>kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
>>keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
>we're
>>talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
>>reversing itself.
>>
>>
>If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes.
>
I don't think that's much of a factor, Robert.

Look at the history of code testing, and amateur license testing in general, in
the USA over the past 28 years. FCC has been slowly nibbling away at it, or
trying to, since at least 1975. Little by little, the requirements have been
reduced and the tests made easier to pass until now the single remaining test
is about as basic as can be made. The only exception is the removal of
multiple-choice code tests.

I doubt very much that FCC will change direction at this point.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Bill Sohl]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kim" <dont
>
> writes:
>
> >"N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, "Kim"
>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> >We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
> >> >amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of
"stuff."
> >>
> >> There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait
for
> >> treaty ratification.
> >>
> >> >Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to
do
> >> >with how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
> >>
> >> Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
> >>nada.
> >
> >True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
> >there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
> >requriement--in some form or another.
>
> The majority of comments to the Restructuring were for at least two code
> speeds. FCC said no.
>
> IMHO the majority opinion today, even among those who haven't taken a code
> test, is that Element 1 should stay. But there is no requirement that FCC
> follow majority opinion.

Do you seriously believe that the 200 thousand or more
non-code techs support keeping element 1? And, as you
note below...this ain't no ballot issue.

> And we may not even get the chance to express an opinion. Once the treaty
is
> ratified, FCC has the authority to simply dump Element 1 with no NPRM or
NOI.

Zactly!

> >The pity is that we must go through this again.
>
> Tell it to those who will write the proposals to dump Element 1
>
> >The amateur community is
> >still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
>
> Heck, there are some who are not over the changes of 1968-69 - even though
they
> were not hams back then!

I must be living in a cave then as I've
yet to meet anyone that wasn't a ham
prior to 68/69 yet is complaining
of the changes made then.

> You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
> gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed
and
> enacted.

BUT that denied existing privilegs to many hams...espeially Generals.
No such LOSS of privileges would accompany the end of Element 1.

(SNIP)

> >At least that's the way I see it. I
> >wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
> >the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
> >organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
> >a year!
> >
> All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
in
> the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.
>
> Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
> sight.
>
> Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?

Should be an interesting answer :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kim" <dont
>
> writes:
>
>
> >At least that's the way I see it. I
> >wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
> >the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
> >organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
> >a year!
> >
> All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
in
> the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.
>
> Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
> sight.
>
> Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
> >> --

Oh goodness, what a loaded question, and that is very astute of you (you'll
understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect <GRIN>). I
don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let
me preface my "final answer" with the following:

It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated
by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent
impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate
anyone different from themselves.

I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above. It is a
"governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone
who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to
the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams.

Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep
their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy"
concept. This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays
of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are
ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the
arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the
air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up
to anyone any more.

Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW. Contrary to such people
as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know"
who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are
new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and
know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone
doing it.

Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.
I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that
waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain
handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual. Heck,
maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
approve VEs, right? I hear too many stories of hams who have no business
being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW.

People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their
opinion (in *my* opinion <GRIN>), and it is their behavior that does more to
harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose
not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement. I am happy to have
*anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as
long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and
encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA.

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community
is
> > still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
>
> Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator.
> I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few
> diehards are ****ed off, they'll either get over it someday or
> die with their own complaining attitudes.
>

While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a
while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on
there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express dismay
and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed
amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I
shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill.

> > >
> > > The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only
reason
> > > reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would
> > > be illogical for FCC to
> > > keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even
though
> > > we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine
> > > FCC being that illogical and reversing itself.
> > >
> >
> > heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
> > entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see
it.
> I
> > wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
> inside
> > the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
> > organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
> than
> > a year!
>
> Here's the question?
> Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
>

WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer
for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally
think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
leave it as it is.

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

> wrote in message ...
> "Kim W5TIT" > writes:
> >
> > It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so
> > populated by people who are so pleased with themselves. . . [snip]
>
> Ridiculous. All achievements encourage pride, which in some translates
> into arrogance. If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW,
> then the arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast.
>

True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it possible
that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to do that?

>
> > Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device. .
.. [snip]
>
> Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have
> them. Compare CB radio, which has none.
>

I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was that
widely in use.

> >
> > As amateur radio operators we are ambassadors of the United States.
>
> That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of
> spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only themselves.
>

Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.

>
> > I am happy to have *anyone* in the hobby--even those with
> > not-so-great-operating practices, . . . [snip]
>
> Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Len.
>

There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying "10-4"
or "turn my house around," etc. Or those that habitually just make a call
without checking to see if a freq is in use, etc.

Kim W5TIT
Sorry so short, but I've seen a few of my posts today that have some error
related to being too long...

[lbudney@pobox.com]

"Kim W5TIT" > writes:
> > wrote:
>>
>> ...If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW, then the
>> arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast.
>
> True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it
> possible that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to
> do that?

I doubt it--people are arrogant that they can drive a stick-shift. I
think anything that takes effort to attain, becomes a point of
pride--even if it's only the ability to spit into a cup without missing.

>> Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have
>> them. Compare CB radio, which has none.
>
> I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was
> that widely in use.

They're in very wide use. The Army has physical exams and boot
camp. These reflect operational needs, but any DI will tell you that
there's more to it than that, and that a primary aspect of boot camp
is the hazing.

Many organizations use rank in this way; the various scouting
organizations, the elks, masons, the Grange, etc.

Many organizations, if not most, have an induction process followed by
a loyalty oath; the masons again, most religions, fraternities, the
Mafia. In the case of fraternities and the like, the induction process
involves hazing and tests of loyalty. In the case of religions, the
masons, the grange, etc., the induction process involves revealing
secrets, along with tests of loyalty. In the case of Mensa, it
involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted that this tiny
requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never attend a single
meeting.)

Those organizations that demand various sorts of effort from their
members tend to receive the most loyalty. (I remember when CB was
pretty clean--even though the required license was a formality. My
parents let us use it freely, and the only problem we really saw was
congestion.)

>> That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of
>> spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only
>> themselves.
>
> Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.

I'm glad; it can only have a positive impact on one's conduct. Though
I wonder what your callsign tells our muslim neighbors about America,
ambassador W5TIT? ;-/

>> Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)
>
> There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying
> "10-4"...

Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser . The only
correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."

Regards,
Len.


Anyone who spells it "poseur", is also a poser.

[Phil Kane]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:38:38 -0400, Bill Sohl wrote:

>Here's the question?
>Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?

Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in
the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is
higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December.

One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal
agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between
Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[Phil Kane]

On 05 Jul 2003 12:23:34 GMT, N2EY wrote:

>You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
>gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed
>and enacted.

Or the wailing and gnashing of teeth back in 1952 when one couldn't
get an Advanced any more.....I had to wait until 1968 to get mine,
and that was before the "incentive licensing" splitups started.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[Phil Kane]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:37:11 GMT, wrote:

>In the case of Mensa, it involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted
>that this tiny requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never
>attend a single meeting.)

Joining another organization for which I wouldn't have the time or
deep inclination to be active in is the reason why I never joined
Mensa or the Masonic Order, both of which I had been "proselytized"
for although they supposedly have rules prohibiting members from doing
that.

>Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser . The only
>correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."

I know a whole bunch of hams who are cops (I do a lot of ARES/RACES
work with them) and everyone seems to be able to keep their jargon
separate.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[lk]

"Phil Kane" > wrote in message
.net...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:38:38 -0400, Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> >Here's the question?
> >Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
>
> Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in
> the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is
> higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December.
>
> One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal
> agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between
> Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island.
> --
> 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year,
what different does it make when you start?

As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones
they created, but it takes a long time.

Larry kc8epo

[Bill Sohl]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community
> is
> > > still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
> >
> > Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator.
> > I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few
> > diehards are ****ed off, they'll either get over it someday or
> > die with their own complaining attitudes.
> >
>
> While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a
> while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on
> there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express
dismay
> and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed
> amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I
> shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill.
>
> > > >
> > > > The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only
> reason
> > > > reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would
> > > > be illogical for FCC to
> > > > keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even
> though
> > > > we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine
> > > > FCC being that illogical and reversing itself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
> > > entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see
> it.
> > I
> > > wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
> > inside
> > > the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge
dollars
> on
> > > organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
> > than
> > > a year!
> >
> > Here's the question?
> > Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
> >
>
> WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer
> for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally
> think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
> leave it as it is.

But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
fullest extent possible.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

[Kim W5TIT]

"Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And, one that disappoints you, I'm sure, Bill. Sorry, but it's my
> opinion.
> >
> > Kim W5TIT
>
> But you didn't answer the question.
> Should the USA keep Element 1 now that the treaty
> has changed?
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>

I'm sure you read the post by now, Bill, right?

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > Here's the question?
> > > Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
> > >
> >
> > WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good
answer
> > for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can
generally
> > think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
> > leave it as it is.
>
> But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
> of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
> fullest extent possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>

Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more
dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is. And,
dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R,
would it?

Kim W5TIT

[Bill Sohl]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > Here's the question?
> > > > Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
> > > >
> > >
> > > WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good
> answer
> > > for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can
> generally
> > > think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to
just
> > > leave it as it is.
> >
> > But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
> > of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
> > fullest extent possible.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bill K2UNK
> >
>
> Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more
> dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is.

Yey that ISwhat they are paid to do.

> And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do
> a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R, would it?

Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and
avoids processing the Element 1 has been passed
data from VECs.

More likly than the above, however, will be the movement
of other countries to a nocode structure (e.g. UK, Netherlands,
and others). It appears...although I don't know the legal
detains for those countries, that they may move to nocode
within weeks or only a few months.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

> Kim W5TIT
>
>

[lbudney@pobox.com]

"Bill Sohl" > writes:
>
> But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification of the
> licensing process and minimizing rules to the fullest extent
> possible.

If the motivation you state was the _only_ motivation, then ARS would
have a pro forma license like 1970s CB radio, or maybe none at all.

They have other incentives, too. One is minimizing bad operators who
will QRM services in ARS or in other bands. Another may or may not be
to discourage participation in ARS and whittle away bandwidth for
lucrative reallocation, or at least to keep it small enough that the
need for new bandwidth is minimized.

Regards,
Len.

[lbudney@pobox.com]

"Bill Sohl" > writes:
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote:
>>
>> And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of
>> minimizing any R&R, would it?
>
> Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and avoids processing
> the Element 1 has been passed data from VECs.

Minimal. As you say, it's just "element 1 has been passed" data. The
VECs shoulder all the hassles, and the testee shoulders the expenses.

Regards,
Len.

[Phil Kane]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:23:24 -0400, lk wrote:

>Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year,
>what different does it make when you start?
>
That's an anecdotal statement. Perhaps that's the average, but
there is nothing that requires any particular minimum or maximum
time.

If there is enough "oomph" behind it, an R&O can be issued in one
day if it's a type that does not require public input. That would
have to be a Memorandum Opinion and Order drafted in a quick hurry,
of course, but if it's issued under delgated authority it just needs
one signature, and even if it's a full Commission MO&O it can be
bicycled through the five offices in less than an hour if everything
is lined up. I've seen them do that with various administrative
matters.

>As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones
>they created, but it takes a long time.

Except when they want it to be a short time.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[Ryan, KC8PMX]

Put me down for July 1st, 2004.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"N2EY" > wrote in message
om...
> So far:
>
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

So far:

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.


73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, "Kim" >
writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>> So far:
>>
>> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
>> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
>> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
>> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
>> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
>> N2EY: April 15, 2004
>> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
>> K3LT: September 15, 2004
>> Kim: June 1, 2008
>>
>> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>>
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>>
>
>Just...Kim?

I didn't want to risk reviving the "one step closer to extinction" threads,
Kim.....

73 de Jim, N2EY
>

[N2EY]

Somehow I missed this on the first pass....

"Kim" > wrote in message >...
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Kim" <dont
> >
> > writes:

> > >At least that's the way I see it. I wonder how much shareholders
> > >realize that there is complete insanity inside
> > >the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
> > >on
> > >organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
> > >than a year!
> > >
> > All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
> > in the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.
> >
> > Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
> > sight.
> >
> > Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
> > >> --
>
> Oh goodness, what a loaded question,

Wasn't meant to be a loaded question, just a simple inquiry on your
opinion.

> and that is very astute of you (you'll
> understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect <GRIN>).

I do - and thanks!

> I
> don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let
> me preface my "final answer" with the following:
>
> It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated
> by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent
> impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate
> anyone different from themselves.

I agree there are a few like that, Kim, but in 35+ years I've only
encountered a few of them. Maybe there are more where you are. There
are certainly more here on rrap than I've encountered in the general
ARS population.

I would also say that your description could be applied to many
different induhviduals, on all sides of the various debates.
>
> I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above.

How? It's just a basic test of a simple skill.

> It is a
> "governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone
> who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to
> the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams.

If that's true, then the same can be said of the written tests. And
vanity callsigns. Or any other accomplishment by an individual.
>
> Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep
> their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy"
> concept.

Maybe where you are. Not around here, or anywhere else I've lived.

Some would describe the code test as an "ante" - an initial
investment, so to speak.

> This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays
> of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are
> ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the
> arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the
> air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up
> to anyone any more.

I don't hear the sort of argument you describe on the air here in EPA,
Kim. In fact, from what I see and hear, the whole code-test thing
seems to be pretty well confined to rrap and a few other outlets.
Maybe where you are it's different, but among the hams I know, putting
someone or a whole group down because of their license class is simply
Not Acceptable Behavior.

> Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW.

That's good. But it's more than a tradition - it's a very popular mode
in the ARS today. Second only to SSB on the amateur HF bands. I would
not be surprised if this year it turned out that CW was #1 in total
QSOs during FD.

> Contrary to such people
> as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know"
> who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are
> new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and
> know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone
> doing it.

Many if not most newcomers are as you describe. But a growing number
are not - in fact, there are some who consider it a put-down even to
be called newcomers.

> Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.

Excellent! But I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on
this. (I'd be happy with 13 and 20 wpm code tests, actually. 5 wpm was
an FCC mistake, made more than 50 years ago).

> I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that
> waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain
> handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual.

I think both sending and receiving should be tested (the two reinforce
each other).

Medical waivers were simply a quick way for FCC to please Papa Bush
and a now-dead King* he wanted to grant a favor. Their implementation
was very poor - any MD or DO could write a waiver, regardless of
specialty or experience. But speech and language pathologists,
occupational therapists, audiologists and other professionals with far
more specialized knowledge and experience in disabilities had no
standing at all. That makes absolutely no sense and shows that the FCC
was simply looking for a quickie solution to a problem.

Again,I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on this.

> Heck,
> maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
> approve VEs, right?

Not gonna happen. The VECs approve the VEs, and the FCC oversees the
process.

Last thing FCC wants is more admin work, which is exactly what any
sort of waiver system generates.

Reducing routine admin work is a key FCC goal. That's why all the
emphasis on reduced testing, fewer tests and license classes, online
renewals and modifications, 10 year licenses, etc. It's the whole
reason behind the VEC and QPC systems: Get unpaid volunteers to do the
work and provide the services and facilities formerly performed by
paid govt. personnel. Brilliant, actually.

That's why the smart money approaches FCC with ready-made ideas, at
the right time.

> I hear too many stories of hams who have no business
> being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you know hams who have forgotten the code? So do I. I also know
folks who have forgotten all sorts of things they once had to know to
pass various tests, but they don't get their highschool diplomas
pinched for it.
>
> People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their
> opinion (in *my* opinion <GRIN>), and it is their behavior that does more to
> harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose
> not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement.

Agreed - and folks like that exist on all sides of the codetest
debate. Do we really want someone who writes things like "those in the
minority should learn to take 'No' for an answer and get on with
life"? (It wasn't a pro-code-test person who wrote that).

> I am happy to have
> *anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as
> long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and
> encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA.

I'm happy to have anyone who follows the rules, pulls their own
weight, exhibits a positive attitude towards others, and seeks to
learn and grow.

What gets forgotten too often is that the license test is just the
beginning.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* "who made you king? I don't recall voting for you!" - "Dennis" in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

N2EY > wrote:

: If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.


KF6TPT: September 29, 2003

I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.

So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to
whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these
days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the
written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you
renew your license.

[Brian]

> wrote in message >...
> N2EY > wrote:
>
> : If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>
>
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
>
> I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
> test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
> they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.
>
> So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
> just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to
> whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these
> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
> consolidation.

Its important for informed Americans to get their news from as few,
controllable sources as possible.

If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

Some in Amateurland have always done that. As long as they congregate
in PCTA groups and invoke the PCTA double standard, they can insulate
themselves from reality.

> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the
> written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you
> renew your license.

I think the written exam material IS "harder," but the format lends
itself to less than stellar results in retained knowledge.

bb

[N2EY]

So far:

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

> wrote in message >...

> I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
> test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
> they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.

That's what the R&O said in 2000, and it was reaffirmed in their
dismissal of the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration.
>
> So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
> just axe Element 1,

The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.

> and leave restructuring the written tests to
> whomever is in charge after 2004.

Possibly. Or they will simply wait for the ARS to come up with a
restructuring proposal.

> Michael Powell is rather busy these
> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
> consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
what the issues are. That's his staff's job.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.

Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. Learning enough code to
pass the test is about as hard as learning to recognize about 40 words
in a foreign language.

> I think the
> written tests should be harder,

That's easily arranged. All you have to do is write up some "harder"
questions and answers in multiple-choice format, and submit them to
the QPC.

There were a bunch of structural changes for the written tests
suggested to the FCC back in '99 as part of the restructuring, but
they ignored all of them and instead reduced written testing.

> and I think you should re-test when you renew your license.

Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Because requiring retest
upon renewal would just about triple the tresting workload of the
VECs.

Retesting would be a very tough sell because you would have to
convince FCC that there is some sort of serious problem caused by lack
of it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KF6TPT]

N2EY > wrote things. They're marked like this: N2EY>
KF6TPT (me) wrote things in a prior post. They're marked like this: TPT>


N2EY> The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.

I keep hearing this getting thrown around, and certainly, my civics
teacher told me this. However, I can't seem to find any mention in the
congressional record of the ratification after WRC-2000.

Can someone point me at it?


TPT> Michael Powell is rather busy these
TPT> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
TPT> consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
TPT> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
TPT> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

N2EY> I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
N2EY> what the issues are. That's his staff's job.

That's exactly my point. Chairman Powell (and other high-ranking FCC
staff) doesn't need to know or care about the ARS. It makes absolutely
no difference to those in charge of the FCC, whether we have a code
requirement or not.

In this current incarnation of the FCC, I think it's reasonable to say
that if code testing doesn't provide a benefit to the FCC, then the FCC
will be eliminating it as quickly as they reasonably can.

TPT> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.

N2EY> Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular.

I would even just say "Hams use code". But hams use AM, and RTTY, and
PSK, and FSK and yes, even phone. Some of us like satellites. Should
you have to prove that you're capable of tracking and hearing UO-14
before being granted a license to transmit on 145.975 MHz? Or that you
know all 26 phonetics and how to locate your grid square (a useful item
for a VHF+ operator to know)

CW is the only mode that is -required-. Sure, even hams who
never use RTTY had to answer written questions about it... but the
difference is, you don't have to get all written questions correct. A
person can become at least a General, if not an Extra, without ever
answering a question about RTTY... just skip them, and make sure you
know the rest of the material.

The end of code testing does not mean the end of CW, nor should it. But
as far as I'm concerned, CW is just another mode, albeit one with a
certain history and artistry to it. With regards to testing, it should
have about as much importance as the rest of the modes (i.e. a handful
of questions in the pool, and perhaps a reference in the questions on
frequency allocations, nothing more, nothing less)


N2EY> Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as
N2EY> learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language.

That's not the point. The fact that just about anyone can learn it
given enough time and practice really just means that all that is really
being tested is a potential ham's level of dedication (and how much free
time he's had in the last few months)

There are plenty of people out there who will say that testing someone's
dedication is a _good_ thing for our hobby. They're the ones that want
to keep the "riff-raff" out. Or at least, that's how it seems.

I just don't see that. The enforcement actions taken by the FCC don't
reflect that either. Many of the people cited for illegal operating
practices have taken 13 and 20wpm code tests.


What I see is a generation of people to whom technology is second nature.
I see hardware engineers and electrical engineers building amazing
commercial applications up in the SHF frequencies. Most of these people
aren't hams. I don't see them knocking down the doors to come join our
ranks, but I don't see us reaching out to them and giving them a reason
to join us, either.

We're doing just the opposite, not entirely with the code test, but with
the attitude that goes with it.

I'd love for some of the current high-tech talent to bring their
knowledge into the Amateur HF arena. We've seen what happens when we
bring them into VHF (I'm thinking about APRS, WSJT/JT44, lots of
software DSP stuff).

But to do that, we need to change. By telling a 22 year old
engineer with a 10-hour a day job and a girlfriend that he needs to
spend "just an hour a day" sitting and listening to code on headphones
for the next month, we are essentially telling him to get lost. He
won't have that kind of free time until he's retired. Plus he's got
other methods of global communication, so the overall gee-whiz factor of
HF is definitely not as much of a draw as it was years ago.

But show the same engineer a PSK31 pileup and his eyes light up.
Perhaps he's thinking of a better way to discriminate between the
colliding warbles and pull yet another call sign out of the morass.
Maybe he's a software engineer. Maybe a DSP guru. Whatever he is, he
could be an asset to the ARS, and play a part in enhancing the radio
art. But he's probably not very interested in CW. Perhaps he will
grow to work CW, perhaps not. But he definitely won't learn it until he
has been exposed to other modes of HF. So, under today's rules, he
moves on to other things... and we'll never know whether his DSP ideas
would work.


There was a time when children were frequently exposed to ham radio, but
those days are past. Not every EE graduate has a dipole in his attic
anymore. The fact is, if the kids and the geeks aren't joining us...
something's wrong, and maybe we should fix it.

I think that it's time for us to grow up, evolve with the times, welcome
newcomers into our ranks, and continue furthering the radio art.


-Jeff

PS.

TPT> and I think you should re-test when you renew your license.
N2EY> Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE?

Yes. I'd be happy to be a VE.

[N2EY]

wrote in message >...
>
> They

{meaning the FCC}

> have other incentives, too. One is minimizing bad operators who
> will QRM services in ARS or in other bands. Another may or may not be
> to discourage participation in ARS and whittle away bandwidth for
> lucrative reallocation, or at least to keep it small enough that the
> need for new bandwidth is minimized.

How about this motivation:

One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the
pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on
the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their
fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because
they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the
rules" anyway.

This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers
covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the
manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those
rules date from 1978.

Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur
license, there will be more hams and fewer
pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line,
enforcement will be easier.

A few weeks ago, FCC went after several hams who were operating
illegally on about 26 MHz. These were relatively new hams - wonder
what they did before they got their tickets?

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

[Phil Kane]

On 11 Jul 2003 09:27:27 -0700, N2EY wrote:

>One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the
>pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on
>the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their
>fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because
>they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the
>rules" anyway.
>
>This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers
>covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the
>manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those
>rules date from 1978.

This sort of thing was debated amongst the cognoscenti in the hard
times before the CB license was abandoned by pressure from the Ford
Administration (Remember "First Momma" Betty Ford ??). Here are some
scenarios:

Imagined Scenario #1

Judge to Prosecutor - "What has this defendant violated?"

Prosecutor to Judge - "He operated a transmitter without a license"

Judge to Prosecutor - "Is there anything barring him from getting
a license?"

Prosecutor to Judge - "No, your honor"

Judge to Prosecutor - "Will he be legal when he gets one?"

Prosecutor to Judge - "Yes, your honor"

Prosecutor to Defendant - "I order you to get a license. Next Case"

Imagined Scenario #2:

Congress to FCC - "What is your number one headache that is costing
a lot of money?"

FCC to Congress - "Tracking down and punishing all the unlicensed
CB operators"

Congress to FCC - "Well, just drop the CB license requirement. Then
you won't have an "unlicensed" CB operator problem
any more"

Unfortunately, both of them were real and the FCC did the latter.

>Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur
>license, there will be more hams and fewer
>pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line,
>enforcement will be easier.

Not at all. It's the same amount of work to DF the bozo, and the
penalty phase is just as difficult.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[N2EY]

So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!):

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:

> So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!):
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> Kim: June 1, 2008
>
> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.

KB3EIA - minimum 4 years from date of requiremen drop.

- Mik KB3EIA -

[Alun Palmer]

Mike Coslo > wrote in
et:

> N2EY wrote:
>
>> So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!):
>>
>> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
>> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
>> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
>> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
>> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
>> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
>> N2EY: April 15, 2004
>> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
>> K3LT: September 15, 2004
>> Kim: June 1, 2008
>>
>> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>
> KB3EIA - minimum 4 years from date of requiremen drop.
>
> - Mik KB3EIA -
>
>

That would be July 5, 2007, then. I don't think it will be that long,
though. I'm on the list for May 1, 2004.

BTW, Luxembourg just ditched the code test. There's a new country every
couple of weeks.

[Bert Craig]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> So far (note that two predicted dates are in the past!):
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> Kim: June 1, 2008
>
> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Quite pleased to *lose* this one.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

[N2EY]

So far (note that two predicted dates are in the pas, with two more only weeks
away):

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KØHB]

"N2EY" > wrote

> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
eliminated in this decade.

While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15 politicians
to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on their
hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East Overshoe, Iowa
and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership about
how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really counts we
actually increased the Morse requirement."

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[Carl R. Stevenson]

While I wish it would be sooner, I'm going to guestimate
that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004.

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> Kim: June 1, 2008
>
> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>

[KØHB]

"N2EY" > wrote

> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
eliminated in this decade.

While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15 politicians
to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on their
hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East Overshoe, Iowa
and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership about
how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really counts we
actually increased the Morse requirement."

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[Mike Coslo]

KØHB wrote:
> "N2EY" > wrote
>
>
>>Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>>eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
>
> Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
> Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
> eliminated in this decade.

You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Dee D. Flint]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> Kim: June 1, 2008
>
> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Put me down for July 1, 2005.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[N2EY]

In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> writes:

>I'm going to guestimate
>that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004.

Carl,

Need an exact date for the pool. Dec 1? Dec 15?

Let me know and I'll put you in.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KØHB]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote

>
> You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm?
>

I don't know if FCC will or will not, but I expect ARRL to ask for an
increase.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[Carl R. Stevenson]

Dec. 30, 2004

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> > writes:
>
> >I'm going to guestimate
> >that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004.
>
> Carl,
>
> Need an exact date for the pool. Dec 1? Dec 15?
>
> Let me know and I'll put you in.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> WK3C: December 30, 2004
> N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

[Alun]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in news:bte3p7
:

> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>>
>> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
>> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
>> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
>> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
>> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
>> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
>> N2EY: April 15, 2004
>> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
>> K3LT: September 15, 2004
>> WK3C: December 30, 2004
>> N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
>> W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>>
>> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>
>

I see we have 14 on the list and 3 are already out of the running. What do
we get if we win?

N3KIP

[Mike Coslo]

Alun wrote:
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in news:bte3p7
> :
>
>
>>"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>>>eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>>>
>>>WA2SI: September 13, 2003
>>>KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
>>>KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
>>>K2UNK: January 1, 2004
>>>K2ASP: March 15, 2004
>>>AA2QA: April 1, 2004
>>>N2EY: April 15, 2004
>>>N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>>>KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
>>>K3LT: September 15, 2004
>>>WK3C: December 30, 2004
>>>N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>>>KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
>>>W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>>>
>>>Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>>>
>>>73 de Jim, N2EY
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I see we have 14 on the list and 3 are already out of the running. What do
> we get if we win?


Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^)

Maybe a J-38 key?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Alun]

Mike Coslo > wrote in :

> Alun wrote:
>> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in news:bte3p7
>> :
>>
>>
>>>"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will
>>>>be eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the
>>>>past.
>>>>
>>>>WA2SI: September 13, 2003
>>>>KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
>>>>KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
>>>>K2UNK: January 1, 2004
>>>>K2ASP: March 15, 2004
>>>>AA2QA: April 1, 2004
>>>>N2EY: April 15, 2004
>>>>N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>>>>KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
>>>>K3LT: September 15, 2004
>>>>WK3C: December 30, 2004
>>>>N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>>>>KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement
>>>>drop") W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>>>>
>>>>Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>>>>
>>>>73 de Jim, N2EY
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see we have 14 on the list and 3 are already out of the running.
>> What do we get if we win?
>
>
> Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^)
>
> Maybe a J-38 key?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>

LOL! A Morse key might be a very ironic prize, depending on who won. I
suppose if I won a key I would have to have my first CW QSO, after 24 years
QRV!

Alun, N3KIP (G8VUK)

[Phil Kane]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

>> What do we get if we win?>
>
> Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key?

I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it.

I'll settle for the K2... <ggg>

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

"Where nothing is heard but discouraging words,
and the skies are all cloudy all day...."
(snowing on and off all week)

[Robert Casey]

KØHB wrote:

>"Mike Coslo" > wrote
>
>
>
>>You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't know if FCC will or will not, but I expect ARRL to ask for an
>increase.
>
>
>
It seems unlikely that the FCC would increase the requirement for code. The
medical wavier issue would pop up again, and they don't want to be bothered.
Also, what of all those "extra lites" issued since restructuring day?
At this
point, it's a sure bet that the FCC will never increase the code speed.

[Robert Casey]

>
>
>>-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>LOL! A Morse key might be a very ironic prize, depending on who won. I
>suppose if I won a key I would have to have my first CW QSO, after 24 years
>QRV!
>
>Alun, N3KIP (G8VUK)
>
>
That's about as long ago since I did a CW QSO. :-)

Let's see, several petitions were submitted a few months ago, and the
comment
periods are now closed. So it's probably sitting on some brearucrat's
desk right
now. Or at the bottom of the pile on one or more commissioners' desks,
to be
looked at when there's nothing better to do. And they'll spend a few
minutes
looking at the restructuring R&O, find the part about code kept only because
of the treaty, note that the teaty has changed, delete the code
requirement, and
publish it in the federal register. Then it takes force 4 months later.
So it cannot
take place before May 2004 (date it takes force, "when Morse code
testing will
be eliminated in the US"). Add a few more months for the brearucracy, so
I say "August 1, 2004"

73 de WA2ISE

[Mike Coslo]

Phil Kane wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
>
>
>>>What do we get if we win?>
>>
>> Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key?
>
>
> I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it.
>
> I'll settle for the K2... <ggg>


Though that Icom 7800 Hans told us about might be a good prize too.

That Jim is a really generous guy, ya'know?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[N2EY]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, Robert Casey
> writes:

>Let's see, several petitions were submitted a few months ago, and the
>comment periods are now closed. So it's probably sitting on some
>brearucrat's desk right now. Or at the bottom of the pile on one or more
>commissioners' desks, looked at when there's nothing better to do.

I doubt very much that the Commissioners read individual comments on
ham radio issues like that. If my guess is right, one or two staffers have
to read all of them and come up with what they think is the best solution
for all concerned.

>And they'll spend a few minutes
>looking at the restructuring R&O, find the part about code kept only because
>of the treaty, note that the t[r]eaty has changed, delete the code
>requirement, and
>publish it in the federal register.

Maybe. They could also change their minds based on any number of factors.
Or simply use the petitions to formulate an NPRM.

> Then it takes force 4 months later.

Unless we go through a whole NPRM cycle.

> So it cannot
>take place before May 2004 (date it takes force, "when Morse code
>testing will
>be eliminated in the US"). Add a few more months for the brearucracy, so
>I say "August 1, 2004"

I'll put you on the list..

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

> Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^)

No.
>
> Maybe a J-38 key?

Don't have one.

The prize is braggin' rights...

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

>Phil Kane wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What do we get if we win?>
>>>
>>> Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key?
>>
>>
>> I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it.
>>
>> I'll settle for the K2... <ggg>
>
>
>Though that Icom 7800 Hans told us about might be a good prize too.
>
>That Jim is a really generous guy, ya'know?
>
Not that generous.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:
> In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:
>
>
>>Phil Kane wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>What do we get if we win?>
>>>>
>>>>Wasn't Jim going to give the winner his K2? 8^) Maybe a J-38 key?
>>>
>>>
>>> I already have a gen-u-wine J-38 with the Lionel "L" on it.
>>>
>>> I'll settle for the K2... <ggg>
>>
>>
>>Though that Icom 7800 Hans told us about might be a good prize too.
>>
>>That Jim is a really generous guy, ya'know?
>>
>
> Not that generous.

Well, I tried! I don't blame you though.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Dave Heil]

Kim W5TIT wrote:
>
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> WK3C: December 30, 2004
> N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim,

Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further
reflect on your character.

Dave K8MN

[Dwight Stewart]

"N2EY" wrote:
> > (snip)
> > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> > Kim: June 1, 2008

> Kim W5TIT wrote:
> > (snip)
> > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> > W5TIT: June 1, 2008

"Dave Heil" wrote:
> Kim,
> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts
> and re-posting with no indication that you're
> changing them? That kind of thing could
> further reflect on your character.


I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her
callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done
with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if
Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless,
until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be
treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham
operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

[Dave Heil]

Dwight Stewart wrote:
>
> "N2EY" wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> > > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> > > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> > > Kim: June 1, 2008
>
> > Kim W5TIT wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> > > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> > > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> > > W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>
> "Dave Heil" wrote:
> > Kim,
> > Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts
> > and re-posting with no indication that you're
> > changing them? That kind of thing could
> > further reflect on your character.
>
> I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with her
> callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done
> with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if
> Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless,
> until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be
> treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham
> operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated.

Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct.

I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of us
have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues with
Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice of
vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.

You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The
touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is
another.

Dave K8MN

[Alun]

Dave Heil > wrote in
:

> Dwight Stewart wrote:
>>
>> "N2EY" wrote:
>> > > (snip)
>> > > WK3C: December 30, 2004
>> > > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>> > > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
>> > > Kim: June 1, 2008
>>
>> > Kim W5TIT wrote:
>> > > (snip)
>> > > WK3C: December 30, 2004
>> > > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>> > > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
>> > > W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>>
>> "Dave Heil" wrote:
>> > Kim,
>> > Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts
>> > and re-posting with no indication that you're
>> > changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your
>> > character.
>>
>> I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with
>> her
>> callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has
>> done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the
>> FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the
>> FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
>> legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio
>> community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his
>> or her own callsign to be treated.
>
> Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct.
>
> I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of
> us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues
> with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice
> of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.
>
> You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The
> touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is
> another.
>
> Dave K8MN

I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know
why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any
of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their
call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with
no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant.

You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say
you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you? As for the
lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be
able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no comment?
If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by
saying nothing.

Alun, N3KIP

[Dwight Stewart]

"Dave Heil" wrote:
>
> Dwight Stewart wrote:
> > I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim
> > obviously has some issue with her
> > callsign. Without saying why, he refuses
> > to use her callsign as he has done with
> > everyone else on his list. That callsign
> > was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has
> > an issue with that, he should take it up
> > with the FCC. Regardless, until the
> > FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
> > legitimate and should be treated as
> > such by all within the Ham radio
> > community - just as any ham operator,
> > including Jim, would expect his or her
> > own callsign to be treated.
>
>
> Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and
> politically correct.


No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
correctness by those people.


> I'm certain that Jim has an issue with
> Kim's call. Quite a number of us have
> issues with Kim's call. Even Riley
> Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's
> call. For you to attempt the equation
> of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call
> with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.


Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the
other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to
Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about
their own character.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

[KØHB]

"Dave Heil" > wrote

>
> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
> indication that you're changing them?
>

Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and
many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that
they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.

YMMV. That's your right.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[Mike Coslo]

Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "N2EY" wrote:
>
>>> (snip)
>>>WK3C: December 30, 2004
>>>N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>>>KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
>>>Kim: June 1, 2008
>>
>
>>Kim W5TIT wrote:
>>
>>> (snip)
>>>WK3C: December 30, 2004
>>>N8UZE: July 1, 2005
>>>KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
>>>W5TIT: June 1, 2008
>>
>
> "Dave Heil" wrote:
>
>>Kim,
>>Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts
>>and re-posting with no indication that you're
>>changing them? That kind of thing could
>>further reflect on your character.
>
>
>
> I think Kim's complaint is valid.

If Jim does not want to use Kim's callsign, he doesn't have to.I don't
have a problem with it, but some people do. Even so, if she wishes to
change the post, she should not put it in as if Jim posted it.



> Jim obviously has some issue with her
> callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has done
> with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and, if
> Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC. Regardless,
> until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be
> treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham
> operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be treated.

If I were in this situation, I would post a polite note with my
callsign, and not post it as if Jim did the posting. I know until I
looked back up at the from area on the screen, I though it was from Jim.

I dobt any of us wants our posts altered. We could eventually get like
the crazies thaat post here from tim to time.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "Dave Heil" wrote:
>
>>Dwight Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim
>>>obviously has some issue with her
>>>callsign. Without saying why, he refuses
>>>to use her callsign as he has done with
>>>everyone else on his list. That callsign
>>>was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has
>>>an issue with that, he should take it up
>>>with the FCC. Regardless, until the
>>>FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
>>>legitimate and should be treated as
>>>such by all within the Ham radio
>>>community - just as any ham operator,
>>>including Jim, would expect his or her
>>>own callsign to be treated.
>>
>>
>>Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and
>>politically correct.
>
>
>
> No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
> political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
> they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
> manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
> correctness by those people.
>
>
>
>>I'm certain that Jim has an issue with
>>Kim's call. Quite a number of us have
>>issues with Kim's call. Even Riley
>>Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's
>>call. For you to attempt the equation
>>of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call
>>with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.
>
>
>
> Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the
> other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to
> Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about
> their own character.


Regardless of the reasoning, do you concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?

- Mike KB3EIA

[Dave Heil]

Alun wrote:
>
> Dave Heil > wrote in
> :
>
> > Dwight Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >> "N2EY" wrote:
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> >> > > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> >> > > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> >> > > Kim: June 1, 2008
> >>
> >> > Kim W5TIT wrote:
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> >> > > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> >> > > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> >> > > W5TIT: June 1, 2008
> >>
> >> "Dave Heil" wrote:
> >> > Kim,
> >> > Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts
> >> > and re-posting with no indication that you're
> >> > changing them? That kind of thing could further reflect on your
> >> > character.
> >>
> >> I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim obviously has some issue with
> >> her
> >> callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has
> >> done with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the
> >> FCC and, if Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the
> >> FCC. Regardless, until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
> >> legitimate and should be treated as such by all within the Ham radio
> >> community - just as any ham operator, including Jim, would expect his
> >> or her own callsign to be treated.
> >
> > Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and politically correct.
> >
> > I'm certain that Jim has an issue with Kim's call. Quite a number of
> > us have issues with Kim's call. Even Riley Hollingsworth has issues
> > with Kim's call. For you to attempt the equation of Kim's tacky choice
> > of vanity call with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.
> >
> > You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The
> > touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is
> > another.
> >
> > Dave K8MN
>
> I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know
> why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any
> of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their
> call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with
> no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant.
>
> You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say
> you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you?

I might not have chosen a call like Kim's? I flat out didn't choose a
call like Kim's. I can honestly say that I would not change the post of
another to make it appear that the original poster had written something
different than what was originally posted.

> As for the
> lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not > be able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no
> comment?

I have no doubt at all that anything Kim would have written would have
been worse than no comment.

> If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by
> saying nothing.

I've not known Kim to be bound by politeness.

Dave K8MN

[Dave Heil]

"KØHB" wrote:
>
> "Dave Heil" > wrote
>
> >
> > Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
> > indication that you're changing them?
> >
>
> Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.

Changing it is one thing. Changing it and making appear that Jim wrote
are two quite different things.

> Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he > and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

It certainly is.

> Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Not by making the material look as if it is a quote of what Jim wrote,
it isn't.

> Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think > that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.

Under no circumstances could Kim remind me of the "Church Lady". As to
the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it your week to do the Walter
Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?

Dave K8MN

[KØHB]

"Dave Heil" > wrote

> As to the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it
> your week to do the Walter
> Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?

Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[Kim W5TIT]

"Dave Heil" > wrote in message
...
> Kim W5TIT wrote:
> >
> > "N2EY" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> > eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
> >
> > WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> > KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> > KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> > K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> > K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> > AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> > N2EY: April 15, 2004
> > N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> > KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> > WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
> > K3LT: September 15, 2004
> > WK3C: December 30, 2004
> > N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> > KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> > W5TIT: June 1, 2008
> >
> > Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> Kim,
>
> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
> indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further
> reflect on your character.
>
> Dave K8MN
>

Dave: First, phuck you and what you think "character" is all about. You are
nothing short of a self-serving, high-nosed, snobbish, educated idiot--and
nothing more; and some of those are even questionable. Second: on
character, like I care.

And, if I've made a post I'VE OBVIOUSLY CHANGED IT OR AM JUST PLAIN
REPOSTING IT. What is so hard about that? Jim refuses to put my callsign
associated with my prediction. I will add it whenever I feel (yeah, one of
those "feeling" things you know nothing about) like it.

Kim W5TIT

[N2EY]

In article . net>, "KØHB"
> writes:

>Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:
> In article . net>, "KØHB"
> > writes:
>
>
>>Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.
>
>
> How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?

Is that the Grumpy old Man list?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Dave Heil]

"KØHB" wrote:
>
> "Dave Heil" > wrote
>
> > As to the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it
> > your week to do the Walter
> > Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?
>
> Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.

See if you can break your contract. In "Grumpiest Old Men", you'll be
starring opposite Kim Walker.

Dave K8MN

[KØHB]

"Dave Heil" > wrote

> > > As to the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it
> > > your week to do the Walter
> > > Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?
> >
> > Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.
>
> See if you can break your contract. In "Grumpiest Old Men", you'll be
> starring opposite Kim Walker.
>

I ain't that grumpy. In fact I feel a spell of downright warm fuzzy
friendliness coming on, and genuine concern and empathy for the opinions and
feelings of those who have lost their clues and don't know where to find
them.

73, de Hans "He isn't a nice man" K0HB

[N2EY]

In article >, Mike Coslo
> writes:

>N2EY wrote:
>> In article . net>, "KØHB"
>> > writes:
>>
>>
>>>Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.
>>
>>
>> How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?
>
>Is that the Grumpy old Man list?
>
Who could be grumpy in their presence?

And at the very top of the list: Jan Smithers, best known as "Bailey Quarters"
(turns 55 this year).

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Kim W5TIT]

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

That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him. Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

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

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

Kim W5TIT


"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dwight Stewart wrote:
> > "Dave Heil" wrote:
> >
> >>Dwight Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim
> >>>obviously has some issue with her
> >>>callsign. Without saying why, he refuses
> >>>to use her callsign as he has done with
> >>>everyone else on his list. That callsign
> >>>was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has
> >>>an issue with that, he should take it up
> >>>with the FCC. Regardless, until the
> >>>FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
> >>>legitimate and should be treated as
> >>>such by all within the Ham radio
> >>>community - just as any ham operator,
> >>>including Jim, would expect his or her
> >>>own callsign to be treated.
> >>
> >>
> >>Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and
> >>politically correct.
> >
> >
> >
> > No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
> > political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even
if
> > they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
> > manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
> > correctness by those people.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm certain that Jim has an issue with
> >>Kim's call. Quite a number of us have
> >>issues with Kim's call. Even Riley
> >>Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's
> >>call. For you to attempt the equation
> >>of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call
> >>with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued
the
> > other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's
callsign to
> > Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot
about
> > their own character.
>
>
> Regardless of the reasoning, do you concur with altering peoples posts
> to reflect your own wishes?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA
>

[Kim W5TIT]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> Dwight Stewart wrote:
> > "N2EY" wrote:
> >
> >>> (snip)
> >>>WK3C: December 30, 2004
> >>>N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> >>>KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> >>>Kim: June 1, 2008
> >>
> >
> >>Kim W5TIT wrote:
> >>
> >>> (snip)
> >>>WK3C: December 30, 2004
> >>>N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> >>>KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
> >>>W5TIT: June 1, 2008
> >>
> >
> > "Dave Heil" wrote:
> >
> >>Kim,
> >>Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts
> >>and re-posting with no indication that you're
> >>changing them? That kind of thing could
> >>further reflect on your character.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think Kim's complaint is valid.
>
> If Jim does not want to use Kim's callsign, he doesn't have to.I don't
> have a problem with it, but some people do. Even so, if she wishes to
> change the post, she should not put it in as if Jim posted it.
>
>
>
> > Jim obviously has some issue with her
> > callsign. Without saying why, he refuses to use her callsign as he has
done
> > with everyone else on his list. That callsign was issued by the FCC and,
if
> > Jim has an issue with that, he should take it up with the FCC.
Regardless,
> > until the FCC says otherwise, that callsign is legitimate and should be
> > treated as such by all within the Ham radio community - just as any ham
> > operator, including Jim, would expect his or her own callsign to be
treated.
>
> If I were in this situation, I would post a polite note with my
> callsign, and not post it as if Jim did the posting. I know until I
> looked back up at the from area on the screen, I though it was from Jim.
>
> I dobt any of us wants our posts altered. We could eventually get like
> the crazies thaat post here from tim to time.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>

Oh, yeah, Mike. And God forbid that you think that Jim posted my prediction
with MY callsign next to it, rather than my name!!! Oh, that would be just
awful...

Sheesh,

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Dave Heil" wrote:
> >
> > Dwight Stewart wrote:
> > > I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim
> > > obviously has some issue with her
> > > callsign. Without saying why, he refuses
> > > to use her callsign as he has done with
> > > everyone else on his list. That callsign
> > > was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has
> > > an issue with that, he should take it up
> > > with the FCC. Regardless, until the
> > > FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
> > > legitimate and should be treated as
> > > such by all within the Ham radio
> > > community - just as any ham operator,
> > > including Jim, would expect his or her
> > > own callsign to be treated.
> >
> >
> > Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and
> > politically correct.
>
>
> No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
> political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
> they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
> manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
> correctness by those people.
>

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'm certain that Jim has an issue with
> > Kim's call. Quite a number of us have
> > issues with Kim's call. Even Riley
> > Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's
> > call. For you to attempt the equation
> > of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call
> > with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.
>
>
> Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the
> other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign
to
> Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot
about
> their own character.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
...
"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WAIT...oh, I was going to change this to show that it is posted from Kim
Walker but, oh my gosh look! It says "From Kim Walker" in the list and,
gosh, let me check now--yep, that pesky little Header has my Yahoo email
address *just like always* and, why just look at that, it even has the same
routing information as always.

It's obvious up front, surely, to anyone not *searching* for the sake of
disagreement and dislike, that this is from anyone but Jim/N2EY. And, it's
obvious, since *I posted to him once and asked him to include my callsign,*
that I am simply adding my callsign to the list. And, of course it's
obvious, right up front from the "From" line, then by further investigation
(if some stupido really needed to go further) into the Header, that this was
sent by someone other than Jim/N2EY.

So, I guess I will no longer have to even bother with those who can't see
the obvious.

Oh, yeah: Kim W5TIT

[N2EY]

> writes:

>Mike, how in the

[expletive deleted]

>is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
>someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
>actually sent it?

The problem is that you *didn't* alter the number
of > symbols at the beginning of the line, so it
looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's
no > in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above.

>The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
>would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
>changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without
changing the > symbols is misattribution and one of the very few
things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers
simply tell what the number of > symbols means.

Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd
want to know.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Dwight Stewart]

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
>
> Regardless of the reasoning, do you
> concur with altering peoples posts
> to reflect your own wishes?


Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:
> In article >, Mike Coslo
> > writes:
>
>
>>N2EY wrote:
>>
>>>In article . net>, "KØHB"
> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Only if my 'co-star' is Sophia Loren.
>>>
>>>
>>>How about Ann Margret? Or Diane Keaton?
>>
>>Is that the Grumpy old Man list?
>>
>
> Who could be grumpy in their presence?
>
> And at the very top of the list: Jan Smithers, best known as "Bailey Quarters"
> (turns 55 this year).


One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how Jan got so little
attention compared to Loni Anderson, who has to be one of the scariest
wimmin this lad has ever seen.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

Kim W5TIT wrote:
> Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
> someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
> actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
> would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
> changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

You could always past it as a quote.


> That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things
> from thin air is usual and status quo for him. Don't be so quick to jump on
> a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I'm not on any Dave Heil bandwagon. That I agree with him in this case
means only that I agree with him in this case.


> For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a
> post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
> opinion that it can be done.

I would have submitted the post as a quote, and perhaps with a "ahem -
My callsign is W5TIT in case you forgot, Jim!" You would have made your
point most eloquently in that case.


> And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my
> callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to
> display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
> resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

Who's angry? Jim has the right to be skittish about your callsign. You
have the right to call him on it. I'm not going to presume to tell you
how to make your posts, but I'll tell you how I would have reacted in
the same circumstances.


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

Who dislikes you? Not me.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "Mike Coslo" wrote:
>
>>Regardless of the reasoning, do you
>>concur with altering peoples posts
>>to reflect your own wishes?
>
>
>
> Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
> a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
> list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
> doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
> should have been unnecessary).

If Kim is uncomfortable with Kim's callsign, that is within his rights.
Standard email would have left no doubts about the message. Message
quoted, and "this" should be changed.

I don't know about everyone's mailreaders, but on the ones I used, it
takes an extra effort to reply to a message and take the quotes out.

I noticed it immediately. What is the point of doing it otherwise?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

Dave Heil wrote:

> Under no circumstances could Kim remind me of the "Church Lady". As to
> the sanctimonious twit reference: Is it your week to do the Walter
> Matthau "Grumpy Old Men" role?


WEEK??? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:
> > writes:
>
>
>>Mike, how in the
>
>
> [expletive deleted]
>
>
>>is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
>>someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
>>actually sent it?
>
>
> The problem is that you *didn't* alter the number
> of > symbols at the beginning of the line, so it
> looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's
> no > in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above.
>
>
>>The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
>>would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
>>changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.
>
>
> Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without
> changing the > symbols is misattribution and one of the very few
> things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers
> simply tell what the number of > symbols means.

Kind of like:

In Unix style commenting, a ">" is placed before each line of quoted
text. Add your new text below the relevant quote.

from http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/netiquette.html


> Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd
> want to know.


- Mike KB3EIA -

[Kim W5TIT]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> Dwight Stewart wrote:
> > "Mike Coslo" wrote:
> >
> >>Regardless of the reasoning, do you
> >>concur with altering peoples posts
> >>to reflect your own wishes?
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception
of
> > a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign
in a
> > list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
> > doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request
which
> > should have been unnecessary).
>
> If Kim is uncomfortable with Kim's callsign, that is within his rights.
> Standard email would have left no doubts about the message. Message
> quoted, and "this" should be changed.
>

Uh, OK. The J and K keys are right next to each other... ;)

Kim W5TIT

[N2EY]

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

>One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how Jan

[Smithers]

>got so little
>attention compared to Loni Anderson, who has to be one of the scariest
>wimmin this lad has ever seen.

It was part of the subtly subversive nature of the show, Mike. All of the
characters were true originals and stereotype-busters.

Part of the subtext was that the more attractive "Bailey" was overlooked
because of people's assumptions rather than the reality. The viewers
saw it, of course. Same for the fact that "Jennifer" was actually in
charge and very intelligent, "Johnny Fever" had an encyclopedic knowledge of
rock and roll, "Venus" had a hidden past that no one suspected, etc.
Appearances were intentionally deceiving.

Remember episodes like the one where Jennifer moves to a new house? Or the ones
with the "Red Wigglers" and "Ferryman Funeral Homes" singing commercials? When
Venus explained the atom in two minutes? Johnny Fever's reaction time after
several drinks? Save The Flim? The list goes on and on..

And truly great music was part of the show, yet never slowed it down.

Yet the show was cancelled even though it was #6 overall in the ratings. The
*overall* ratings. Can you imagine a #6 show that cost almost nothing to make
being cancelled today?

"WKRP" and "Barney Miller" essentially invented the workplace ensemble sitcom
that has no central character.. Before those two shows, almost all sitcoms were
reinventions of the nuclear-family-plus-sidekick based 'The Honeymooners"
and/or "I Love Lucy", (which are quite alike in many respects, except that the
gender roles are reversed in "Lucy"). Most sitcoms today are simply variations
on
Alice, Ralph, Trixie and Ed, or Lucy, Ricky, Ethel and Fred.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"as God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly..."

[N2EY]

In article .net>, "KØHB"
> writes:

>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>
>> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>> indication that you're changing them?
>
>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?
>
>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and
>many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.

>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that
>they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.

"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>
>YMMV. That's your right.
>
It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008
K0HB: January 1, 2011 (first date not in "this decade")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article . net>, "KØHB"
> writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote
>
>> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
>Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
>Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
>eliminated in this decade.

I'll put you on the list for January 1, 2011, assuming by "this decade" you
meant the ten years from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:
> In article .net>, "KØHB"
> > writes:
>
>
>>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>>>indication that you're changing them?
>>
>>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.
>
>
> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>
> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
> done so?
>
> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
> signature?
>
>>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and
>>many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
>
>
> To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
> the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
> tried not
> to make a big deal about the issue.
>
> I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
> what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
> me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
> always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
> were not.
>
> I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
> callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
> it
> far more visibility than it would otherwise get.
>
>
>>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.
>
>
> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Nope

> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
> done so?


Nope


> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
> signature?


Nope


>
>>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that
>>they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.
>
>
> "Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>
>>YMMV. That's your right.
>>
>
> It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
> comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
> omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

I did, but saw no need to comment until the mis-attribute letter came along.


> Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
> *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
> else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
> anyone else.
>
> I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
> with it.
>
> But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

Most of her posts have the correct attributes (or is that
attributification) 8^) How this message became "different" is a mystery.
Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was not. Heck if I did that, I'd send
out an "oops" at least.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Alun]

(N2EY) wrote in
:

> In article .net>,
> "KØHB" > writes:
>
>>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>>
>>> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>>> indication that you're changing them?
>>
>>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
>>that.
>
> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>
> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
> of having done so?
>
> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
> signature?
>>
>>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
>>he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
>
> To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is
> inappropriate for the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's
> evaluation of it. But I have tried not
> to make a big deal about the issue.
>
> I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
> control what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are
> edited out by me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and
> email standards. I try to always be clear what words were written by
> the original author and what words were not.
>
> I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
> choice of callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign,
> therefore giving it
> far more visibility than it would otherwise get.
>
>>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.
>
> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>
> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
> of having done so?
>
> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
> signature?
>
>>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
>>that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
>>right.
>
> "Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>>
>>YMMV. That's your right.
>>
> It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
> less comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In
> fact, I've been omitting it for many months and no one has noticed
> until now.
>

You're kidding, right? Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
didn't notice.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's. But I'm not an Internet cop.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
very prominently displayed to me.

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

> Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
> would *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status
> as anything else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise
> patronized by me. Or by anyone else.
>
> I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to
> change. Deal with it.
>
> But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

73 de Alun, N3KIP

[KØHB]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008
>> K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Egbert: September 13, 2003
Jeff: September 29, 2003
Leroy: December 31, 2003
Bill: January 1, 2004
Phil: March 15, 2004
Jim H: April 1, 2004
Jim M: April 15, 2004
Alun: May 1, 2004
Ryan: July 1, 2004
Robert: August 1, 2004
Larry: September 15, 2004
Charles: December 30, 2004
Dee: July 1, 2005
Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<


Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?


Howzat?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Bert Craig]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> Egbert: September 13, 2003
> Jeff: September 29, 2003
> Leroy: December 31, 2003
> Bill: January 1, 2004
> Phil: March 15, 2004
> Jim H: April 1, 2004
> Jim M: April 15, 2004
> Alun: May 1, 2004
> Ryan: July 1, 2004
> Robert: August 1, 2004
> Larry: September 15, 2004
> Charles: December 30, 2004
> Dee: July 1, 2005
> Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> Kim: June 1, 2008
>
> Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<
>
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
>
> Howzat?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't know
his place?) ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

[Mike Coslo]

Bert Craig wrote:

> Hey Mike,
>
> My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't know
> his place?) ;-)

oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
looked it up on arr.org.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Kim W5TIT]

Jim, remove my name and prediction from this list.

Kim W5TIT


"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> WK3C: December 30, 2004
> N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
>
> K0HB: January 1, 2011 (first date not in "this decade")
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>

[Kim W5TIT]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> N2EY wrote:
> > In article .net>,
"KØHB"
> > > writes:
> >
> >
> >>"Dave Heil" > wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
> >>>indication that you're changing them?
> >>
> >>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
that.
> >
> >
> > Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
> >
> > Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of
having
> > done so?
> >
> > Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
> > signature?
> >
> >>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he
and
> >>many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
> >
> >
> > To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate
for
> > the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I
have
> > tried not
> > to make a big deal about the issue.
> >
> > I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
control
> > what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited
out by
> > me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I
try to
> > always be clear what words were written by the original author and what
words
> > were not.
> >
> > I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
choice of
> > callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore
giving
> > it
> > far more visibility than it would otherwise get.
> >
> >
> >>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.
> >
> >
> > Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>
> Nope
>
> > Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of
having
> > done so?
>
>
> Nope
>
>
> > Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
> > signature?
>
>
> Nope
>
>
> >
> >>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
that
> >>they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.
> >
> >
> > "Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
> >
> >>YMMV. That's your right.
> >>
> >
> > It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
less
> > comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've
been
> > omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.
>
> I did, but saw no need to comment until the mis-attribute letter came
along.
>
>
> > Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
would
> > *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as
anything
> > else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or
by
> > anyone else.
> >
> > I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change.
Deal
> > with it.
> >
> > But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.
>
> Most of her posts have the correct attributes (or is that
> attributification) 8^) How this message became "different" is a mystery.
> Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was not. Heck if I did that, I'd send
> out an "oops" at least.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>
>

It was not an "oops" at all, Mike. I've noticed before that Jim sends that
list out without my callsign associated with it. I consider that my
prediction is probably among the most accurate of the predictions that have
a true "pulse" on amateur radio--REGARDLESS of the callsign of *any* chosen
ham.

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. I
deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
a problem with that.

I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
list. If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"KØHB" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> WK3C: December 30, 2004
> N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> >> K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> Egbert: September 13, 2003
> Jeff: September 29, 2003
> Leroy: December 31, 2003
> Bill: January 1, 2004
> Phil: March 15, 2004
> Jim H: April 1, 2004
> Jim M: April 15, 2004
> Alun: May 1, 2004
> Ryan: July 1, 2004
> Robert: August 1, 2004
> Larry: September 15, 2004
> Charles: December 30, 2004
> Dee: July 1, 2005
> Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
>
> Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<
>
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
>
> Howzat?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
et...
> Bert Craig wrote:
>
> > Hey Mike,
> >
> > My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't
know
> > his place?) ;-)
>
> oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
> looked it up on arr.org.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>

Mike, nice of ya....but just leave me off...

Kim W5TIT

[Bert Craig]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
et...
> Bert Craig wrote:
>
> > Hey Mike,
> >
> > My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't
know
> > his place?) ;-)
>
> oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
> looked it up on arr.org.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

It's all good, my friend. :-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

[Arf! Arf!]

All the talk about dumbing down and we get a thread with nothing to do
with radio at all. Dumb on...

Bert Craig wrote:
> "Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>Bert Craig wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey Mike,
>>>
>>>My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't
>
> know
>
>>>his place?) ;-)
>>
>>oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
>>looked it up on arr.org.
>>
>>- Mike KB3EIA -
>
>
> It's all good, my friend. :-)
>
> 73 de Bert
> WA2SI
>
>

[N2EY]

In article >, "KØHB"
> writes:

>>> K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<

I can put you down for that date, Hans. However, note that the "first date not
in 'this millenium' is January 1, 3001 - because there was no year 0 in our
calendar.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, "Kim"
writes:

>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.

There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's your
perception, not my intent.

>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
>original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the > symbols,
so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked that one up to
a simple typo and said nothing.

Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.

>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
>a problem with that.

If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
you do not give others.
>
>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
>list.

Done. No problem.

>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
>malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.

I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
choice.

But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal in
every way but license class.

I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your choice
of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
sequentially.

The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
in the best interests of all concerned.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KØHB]

"N2EY" > wrote

> However, note that the "first date not
> in 'this millenium' is January 1, 3001.

You're mistaken Jim, but I don't want to carry on another pointless argument
with you for the next 996 years, so just forget it.

With all kind wishes for Y3K,

de Hans, K0HB

[Leo]

Jim,

My comments are below:

On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

>In article >, "Kim"
>writes:
>
>>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.
>
>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's your
>perception, not my intent.

But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to
acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
forum. That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
well! Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
personal morals and prejudices upon others? Did anyone here ask you
to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
offensive? Certainly not.

>
>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
>>original message simply to include my callsign in the list.
>

Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!

>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the > symbols,
>so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked that one up to
>a simple typo and said nothing.
>
>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>
>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
>>a problem with that.
>
>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
>you do not give others.

Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right? That doesn't sound like
you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.

>>
>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
>>list.
>
>Done. No problem.
>
>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
>>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
>>malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.
>
>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
>I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
>choice.

That is not up to you to decide, Jim. The FCC could have refused to
issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
freely issue this suffix as well!

If you met Dick Van Dyke in person one day, would you refuse to
address him as anything other than 'Richard', because you felt that
his parents made an inappropriate choice? Of course not! That's
silly.

>
>But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
>is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
>amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
>involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal in
>every way but license class.

Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
to. As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
vanity callsign, just like you! (and, up here, VE7TIT, VE3TIT and
VE2TIT - all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).

>
>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your choice
>of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
>service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
>sequentially.

Why not? It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC statement
to the contrary. In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.

>
>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
>in the best interests of all concerned.

Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is in
the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
here!

I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
value system to overrule something which is permitted by law. If Kim's
callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
entirely. On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
killfile for this purpose. Not censorship! Intentional deletion of
her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.

Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called 'access
covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male bias').

I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word "tit". Those
posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.

Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio -
as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.

Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
typing it, I'm sure I don't know. Whatever it it, I hope you are able
to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.

73, Leo

>
>73 de Jim, N2EY

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kim"
> writes:
>
> >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.
>
> There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's
your
> perception, not my intent.
>

Of *course* it's my perception--and *that's* the only one that counts, from
my perspective.

> >
> >I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of
the
> >original message simply to include my callsign in the list.
>
> At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the >
symbols,
> so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked that one up
to
> a simple typo and said nothing.
>

That was *your* perception, not my intention.

>
> Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
> signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>

It may have looked that way to a lot of folks. However, quick observation
(to an astute individual anyway) revealed the [refrain: sarcasm and
demonstrated indignation with which that entire action was meant to relay].

> >
> >I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person
has
> >a problem with that.
>
> If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
> your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
> you do not give others.
> >

You've been disrespectful since you began posting that list without my
callsign. I daresay you made a conscious to *be* disrespectful when you did
that: as evidenced by your statement, something to the effect of you could
not believe no one has noticed it until now.

> >
> >I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
> >list.
>
> Done. No problem.
>

Good.

> >
> >If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
> >way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
> >malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.
>
> I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
> I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
> choice.
>

And, what if I suddenly decided that you made an inappropriate choice about
something and decided to start calling you George, or Stan because I think
"Jim" is too disrespectful for the community of man? My callsign *may* (and
I wholeheartedly disagree with you) be inappropriate for amateur radio;
however, it is my callsign. You have at times offered to communicate with
me over the amateur bands, Jim. Did you intend on embarking upon a
communication refraining from using my callsign? THAT would be entirely
unacceptable to me. Would you throw away a QSL card from me?

If you are so affected by my callsign, why do you stop at just refusing to
"print" or enter it somewhere? If you object enough to demonstrate *any*
disrespect/shunning--whatever--then you should shun totally. You
demonstrated that you will only act upon your belief to the point at which
it is convenient for you.

>
> But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
> is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
> amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
> involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal
in
> every way but license class.
>

And, I thnk you are totally incorrect about that. Each of us being better
at some things than others is exactly what makes us all equal in the wash.
I am exactly as important to my company as the CEO; in different aspects,
but nonetheless we are each as important as the other. The *only*
difference between me and the CEO of my company is that he makes more money
than I do. I am just as liable for actions and decisions I take at my
company as he/she is. I am just as able to be terminated as he/she is. I
am just as replaceable as he/she is. Each and every amateur is equal to the
next.

>
> I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your
choice
> of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
> service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
> sequentially.
>

As I said, if you are so fixated upon demonstrating by deletion of my
callsign; then I dare you to carry further with that an shun me totally. In
fact, I implore it of you! It totally has me upset to think that you are so
affected, yet you communicate with me. (for those "unastute": that was
sarcasm)

>
> The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
> in the best interests of all concerned.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

Oh, blah, blah, blah....

Kim W5TIT

[N2EY]

In article .net>, "Dwight
Stewart" > writes:

>"Mike Coslo" wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of the reasoning, do you
>> concur with altering peoples posts
>> to reflect your own wishes?
>
> Of course not.

But you have no negative comments for the person who does it.

>But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
>a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
>list containing only the callsigns of others?

Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to the ARS.

Do you think all possible callsigns are appropriate, Dwight?

Last year the treaty was changed so that hams can now be issued calls with
four-letter suffixes (like W3PENN, for example). Think of what could be
done with some of the combinations.

>Jim is aware of what he's
>doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
>should have been unnecessary).

Why should such a request be honored? Is it against FCC rules for me to
omit a callsign in a Usenet post?

You have had no problem when others have used insulting names rather than
callsigns to refer to me, but when I use Kim's name instead of callsign you
tell me what I should do. Looks like a double standard to me.

Kim has been asked to choose a more appropriate callsign. She has
refused, which is her right, of course. Just as it is my right to avoid
that callsign and others like it when possible.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, Alun
> writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:
>
>> In article .net>,
>> "KØHB" > writes:
>>
>>>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>>>> indication that you're changing them?
>>>
>>>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
>>>that.
>>
>> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>
>> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>> of having done so?
>>
>> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>> signature?
>>>
>>>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
>>>he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
>>
>> To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is
>> inappropriate for the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's
>> evaluation of it. But I have tried not
>> to make a big deal about the issue.
>>
>> I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
>> control what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are
>> edited out by me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and
>> email standards. I try to always be clear what words were written by
>> the original author and what words were not.
>>
>> I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
>> choice of callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign,
>> therefore giving it
>> far more visibility than it would otherwise get.
>>
>>>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.
>>
>> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>
>> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>> of having done so?
>>
>> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>> signature?
>>
>>>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
>>>that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
>>>right.
>>
>> "Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>>>
>>>YMMV. That's your right.
>>>
>> It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
>> less comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In
>> fact, I've been omitting it for many months and no one has noticed
>> until now.
>>
>
>You're kidding, right?

About what?

Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

Do you think it's anyone's right to change quoted posts with no indication
of having done so?

Do you think it's anyone's right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your posts,
Alun?

>Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
>didn't notice.

But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.
>
>Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
>everyone else's.

Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?

> But I'm not an Internet cop.
>
Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.

>My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
>anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
>skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
>need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
>very prominently displayed to me.

Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?
>
>So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
>from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
>different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
>newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.
>
>> Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
>> would *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status
>> as anything else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise
>> patronized by me. Or by anyone else.
>>
>> I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to
>> change. Deal with it.
>>
>> But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.
>>
73 de Jim, N2EY

[Len Over 21]

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

>Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
>Egbert: September 13, 2003
>Jeff: September 29, 2003
>Leroy: December 31, 2003
>Bill: January 1, 2004
>Phil: March 15, 2004
>Jim H: April 1, 2004
>Jim M: April 15, 2004
>Alun: May 1, 2004
>Ryan: July 1, 2004
>Robert: August 1, 2004
>Larry: September 15, 2004
>Charles: December 30, 2004
>Dee: July 1, 2005
>Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
>Kim: June 1, 2008
>
>Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<
>
>
>Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
>
>Howzat?

That's NOT in "UNIX format," Mike...you are NOT giving the right
attribute line prefixes!!!

LHA

[Len Over 21]

In article >, Mike Coslo
> writes:

>Kind of like:
>
>In Unix style commenting, a ">" is placed before each line of quoted
>text. Add your new text below the relevant quote.
>
>from http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/netiquette.html

Mike...the quote-formatting standard originated on ARPANET
when USENET began there. Old stuff. Been there, done that.

It is a common-use standard, not a legal, lawful one.

5 minutes in the penalty box just because...

LHA

[Len Over 21]

In article .net>, "Dwight
Stewart" > writes:

>"Mike Coslo" wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of the reasoning, do you
>> concur with altering peoples posts
>> to reflect your own wishes?
>
>
> Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
>a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
>list containing only the callsigns of others? Jim is aware of what he's
>doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
>should have been unnecessary).

...it might have been a Preview of Coming Attractions advertising
a new Sermon on the Antenna Mount by Rev. Jim. :-)

Hans is right. A bunch of sanctimonious Church Ladies trying to
manufacture disputes with their production lines all broken down.

LHA

[Alun]

(N2EY) wrote in
:

> In article >, Alun
> > writes:
>
(N2EY) wrote in
:
>>
>>> In article .net>,
>>> "KØHB" > writes:
>>>
>>>>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>>>>> indication that you're changing them?
>>>>
>>>>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
>>>>that.
>>>
>>> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>>
>>> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>>> of having done so?
>>>
>>> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>>> signature?
>>>>
>>>>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
>>>>he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
>>>
>>> To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is
>>> inappropriate for the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's
>>> evaluation of it. But I have tried not
>>> to make a big deal about the issue.
>>>
>>> I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
>>> control what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases
>>> are edited out by me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet
>>> and email standards. I try to always be clear what words were written
>>> by the original author and what words were not.
>>>
>>> I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
>>> choice of callsign wrote many, many postings containing that
>>> callsign, therefore giving it far more visibility than it would
>>> otherwise get.
>>>
>>>>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her
>>>>right.
>>>
>>> Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>>
>>> Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>>> of having done so?
>>>
>>> Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>>> signature?
>>>
>>>>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
>>>>that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
>>>>right.
>>>
>>> "Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>>>>
>>>>YMMV. That's your right.
>>>>
>>> It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
>>> less comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In
>>> fact, I've been omitting it for many months and no one has noticed
>>> until now.
>>>
>>
>>You're kidding, right?
>
> About what?

About thinking no-one had noticed. I think if you actually asked you would
find that we all noticed

>
> Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?
>
> Do you think it's anyone's right to change quoted posts with no
> indication of having done so?
>
> Do you think it's anyone's right to end a post with someone else's
> typical signature?
>
> What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your
> posts, Alun?
>

Probably about the same as it would be if they left my callsign out of a
list of callsigns and put my name in instead.

>>Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we didn't notice.
>
> But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.
>>
>>Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
>>everyone else's.
>
> Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?

Because the FCC issued it

>
>> But I'm not an Internet cop.
>>
> Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.
>
>>My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without
>>adding anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In
>>fact I can skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually
>>do, unless I need to go back and get the context. And the name of the
>>actual sender is very prominently displayed to me.
>
> Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?
>>
>>So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it
>>was from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake.
>>Granted different people don't see the same screen, as they are using
>>different newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.
>
> To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.
>>
>>> Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
>>> would *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her
>>> status as anything else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise
>>> patronized by me. Or by anyone else.
>>>
>>> I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to
>>> change. Deal with it.
>>>
>>> But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it
>>> clear.
>>>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
>

Jim, leaving Kim's callsign out of the list was calculated to annoy her.
There's little point complaining that she didn't like it and acted
accordingly.

FYI, both my G calls end in VUK, which is a banned combination on car
licence plates in the same country, apparently due to similarity with the
F*** word. G8VUK was sequentially issued. G0VUK was not, which apparently
puts me in the same league as Kim.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

[N2EY]

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
K0HB: January 1, 3000

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article t>, "KØHB"
> writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote
>
>> However, note that the "first date not
>> in 'this millenium' is January 1, 3001.
>
>You're mistaken Jim

How am I mistaken, Hans? Did the new millenium start on January 1, 2000 or
January 1, 2001?

I'll put you on the list for January 1, 3000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

In article >, Leo >
writes:

>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>
>>In article >, "Kim"
>>writes:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's your
>>perception, not my intent.
>
>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to
>acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
>forum.

I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?

>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
>well!

I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?

>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
>personal morals and prejudices upon others?

Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the same to me.

Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my posts?

>Did anyone here ask you
>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
>offensive? Certainly not.

I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone else can
post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I have to repeat it.

What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?

Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the original
list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even *should* not do the
list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to censor *me*.

If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included, that's their
right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote something I did not.
>>
>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of
>>>the original message simply to include my callsign in the list.
>
>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!

So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
>
>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the >
>>symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked
>>that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.
>>
>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.

Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was their right
to do it?
>>
>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
>>>a problem with that.
>>
>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
>>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
>>you do not give others.
>
>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?

Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my posts.
I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".

Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as "wrong" is
really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals and prejudices upon
me.

>That doesn't sound like
>you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
>follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.

I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
inappropriate for the ARS. She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
sequentially. It
was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to extinction" that
exceeded 3000 posts.

>>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
>>>list.
>>
>>Done. No problem.
>>
>>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
>>>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
>>>malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.
>>
>>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
>>I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
>>choice.
>
>That is not up to you to decide, Jim.

Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns are
not appropriate?

Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?

ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with four-letter
suffixes,
like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.

>The FCC could have refused to
>issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
>motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
>freely issue this suffix as well!

FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the database, or
better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the suffixes immediately before
and after are much more common.
>
>If you met Dick Van Dyke in person one day, would you refuse to
>address him as anything other than 'Richard', because you felt that
>his parents made an inappropriate choice? Of course not! That's
>silly.

Invalid analogy. "Dick" is a common male nickname.
>
>>But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
>>is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
>>amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
>>involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal in
>>every way but license class.
>
>Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
>to.

No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.

>As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
>vanity callsign, just like you!

Of course! And she does use it here.

But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not have the
right to refrain from doing so?

>(and, up here,

(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)

>all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).
>
Were those calls sequentially issued?

>>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your choice
>>of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
>>service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
>>sequentially.
>
>Why not?

Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC will,
however, issue them if requested through the vanity program.

>It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
>it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC statement
>to the contrary.

I refer you to the Callbook and databases.

>In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
>your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
>fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.

In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an opinion?

>>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
>>in the best interests of all concerned.
>
>Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is in
>the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
>prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
>unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
>here!

Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be done by
othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are deciding what is
"right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an unavoidable consequence
of having an opinion. The only other option is to never express any opinions at
all.

For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur license should
be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on the issue should take
precedence over what others think and want. They're saying that the FCC's
current rules are incorrect and need to change.

And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the code
test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and to try to get
their
will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those who
disagree have rights, too.

>I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
>value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.

See above about the tests.

What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I *must not*
oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are permitted by law.

Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?

>If Kim's
>callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
>entirely.

Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
with her about callsign choice.

What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by determining how
I can post here.

>On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
>someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
>killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!

Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone from
posting anyhting?

> Intentional deletion of
>her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
>reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.

I disagree.

Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS. IMHO YMMV
>
>Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
>running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called 'access
>covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male bias').

I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on Usenet as
a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I *must* post in a certain
way. Why?
>
>I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
>related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word

[slang word deleted]

Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's
not a birdwatcher.

>Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.

I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.
>
>Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio -
>as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.

This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused
to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting names -
and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
disrespectful.
>
>Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
>typing it, I'm sure I don't know.

I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.

>Whatever it it, I hope you are able
>to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
>you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.
>
I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to force
*me* to use it here on Usenet.

Or do they?

Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone *must*
include that word or phrase in any replies?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

N2EY wrote:

> In article >, Alun
> > writes:
>
>
(N2EY) wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>>"KØHB" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>>>>>indication that you're changing them?
>>>>
>>>>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
>>>>that.
>>>
>>>Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>>
>>>Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>>>of having done so?
>>>
>>>Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>>>signature?
>>>
>>>>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
>>>>he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
>>>
>>>To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is
>>>inappropriate for the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's
>>>evaluation of it. But I have tried not
>>>to make a big deal about the issue.
>>>
>>>I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
>>>control what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are
>>>edited out by me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and
>>>email standards. I try to always be clear what words were written by
>>>the original author and what words were not.
>>>
>>>I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
>>>choice of callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign,
>>>therefore giving it
>>>far more visibility than it would otherwise get.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.
>>>
>>>Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>>
>>>Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>>>of having done so?
>>>
>>>Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>>>signature?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
>>>>that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
>>>>right.
>>>
>>>"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>>>
>>>>YMMV. That's your right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
>>>less comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In
>>>fact, I've been omitting it for many months and no one has noticed
>>>until now.
>>>
>>
>>You're kidding, right?
>
>
> About what?
>
> Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?
>
> Do you think it's anyone's right to change quoted posts with no indication
> of having done so?
>
> Do you think it's anyone's right to end a post with someone else's typical
> signature?
>
> What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your posts,
> Alun?
>
>
>>Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
>>didn't notice.
>
>
> But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.
>
>>Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
>>everyone else's.
>
>
> Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?
>
>
>>But I'm not an Internet cop.
>>
>
> Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.
>
>
>>My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
>>anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
>>skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
>>need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
>>very prominently displayed to me.
>
>
> Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?
>
>>So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
>
>>from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
>
>>different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
>>newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.
>
>
> To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

Len Over 21 wrote:

> In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:
>
>
>>Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>>eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>>
>>Egbert: September 13, 2003
>>Jeff: September 29, 2003
>>Leroy: December 31, 2003
>>Bill: January 1, 2004
>>Phil: March 15, 2004
>>Jim H: April 1, 2004
>>Jim M: April 15, 2004
>>Alun: May 1, 2004
>>Ryan: July 1, 2004
>>Robert: August 1, 2004
>>Larry: September 15, 2004
>>Charles: December 30, 2004
>>Dee: July 1, 2005
>>Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
>>Kim: June 1, 2008
>>
>>Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium") <<
>>
>>
>>Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>>
>>
>>Howzat?
>
>
> That's NOT in "UNIX format," Mike...you are NOT giving the right
> attribute line prefixes!!!

That was half the point in this case! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Mike Coslo]

Alun wrote:

> (N2EY) wrote in
> :
>
>
>>In article >, Alun
> writes:
>>
>>
(N2EY) wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article .net>,
>>>>"KØHB" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Dave Heil" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
>>>>>>indication that you're changing them?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
>>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>>>>of having done so?
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>>>>signature?
>>>>
>>>>>Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
>>>>>he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.
>>>>
>>>>To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is
>>>>inappropriate for the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's
>>>>evaluation of it. But I have tried not
>>>>to make a big deal about the issue.
>>>>
>>>>I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
>>>>control what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases
>>>>are edited out by me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet
>>>>and email standards. I try to always be clear what words were written
>>>>by the original author and what words were not.
>>>>
>>>>I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
>>>>choice of callsign wrote many, many postings containing that
>>>>callsign, therefore giving it far more visibility than it would
>>>>otherwise get.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her
>>>>>right.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's her right to misattribute?
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
>>>>of having done so?
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
>>>>signature?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
>>>>>that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
>>>>>right.
>>>>
>>>>"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>YMMV. That's your right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
>>>>less comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In
>>>>fact, I've been omitting it for many months and no one has noticed
>>>>until now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're kidding, right?
>>
>>About what?
>
>
> About thinking no-one had noticed. I think if you actually asked you would
> find that we all noticed
>
>
>>Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?
>>
>>Do you think it's anyone's right to change quoted posts with no
>>indication of having done so?
>>
>>Do you think it's anyone's right to end a post with someone else's
>>typical signature?
>>
>>What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your
>>posts, Alun?
>>
>
>
> Probably about the same as it would be if they left my callsign out of a
> list of callsigns and put my name in instead.
>
>
>>>Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we didn't notice.
>>
>>But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.
>>
>>>Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
>>>everyone else's.
>>
>>Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?
>
>
> Because the FCC issued it
>
>
>>>But I'm not an Internet cop.
>>>
>>
>>Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.
>>
>>
>>>My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without
>>>adding anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In
>>>fact I can skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually
>>>do, unless I need to go back and get the context. And the name of the
>>>actual sender is very prominently displayed to me.
>>
>>Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?
>>
>>>So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it
>>>was from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake.
>>>Granted different people don't see the same screen, as they are using
>>>different newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.
>>
>>To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.
>>
>>>>Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
>>>>would *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her
>>>>status as anything else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise
>>>>patronized by me. Or by anyone else.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to
>>>>change. Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it
>>>>clear.
>>>>
>>
>>73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Jim, leaving Kim's callsign out of the list was calculated to annoy her.
> There's little point complaining that she didn't like it and acted
> accordingly.
>
> FYI, both my G calls end in VUK, which is a banned combination on car
> licence plates in the same country, apparently due to similarity with the
> F*** word. G8VUK was sequentially issued. G0VUK was not, which apparently
> puts me in the same league as Kim.
>
> 73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun, you can google up the background of Kim's call sign if you like.
It *is* a double entendre. I know this and am not particulary troubled
by it. Jim also knows this also, and is.

There is still also the issue of the two nearly identical posts from
the same day. THe difference is that post one is properly attributed,
and the second isn't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Len Over 21]

In article >, Mike Coslo
> writes:

>> That's NOT in "UNIX format," Mike...you are NOT giving the right
>> attribute line prefixes!!!
>
> That was half the point in this case! 8^)

Not at all.

You are just busy swinging your stick, sweetums, because you have
a need to Do Battle.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You make it seem like US ham radio is a bunch of white guys trying
to make out like they are little boy scouts with church ladies as den
mothers.

Prissy pinkness. [Expletive Deleted]

WMD

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
> WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
> K3LT: September 15, 2004
> WK3C: December 30, 2004
> N8UZE: July 1, 2005
> KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
> K0HB: January 1, 3000
>
> Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

W5TIT: January 1, 2008. However, I will add this sentence as I desire; I
*DO NOT* wish to be placed into a list under name only. Kim may not be a
ham radio operator. W5TIT is.

Kim W5TIT

[Kim W5TIT]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
et...
>
> I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
> probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.
>
> But something interesting is in there.
>
> In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
> all this started.
>
> There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
> 02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
> proper attributes.
>
> Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
> guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
> controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>

'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to
the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world
was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple
of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that
in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!

The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my
callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like
I don't have a callsign?

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

Kim W5TIT

[Mike Coslo]

Kim W5TIT wrote:
> "Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
>>probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.
>>
>>But something interesting is in there.
>>
>>In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
>>all this started.
>>
>>There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
>>02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
>>proper attributes.
>>
>>Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
>>guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
>>controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.
>>
>>- Mike KB3EIA -
>>
>>
>
>
> 'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
> WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to
> the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
> else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
> on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
> honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
> attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world
> was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
> not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple
> of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that
> in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
> Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!
>
> The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
> operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
> posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my
> callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
> those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like
> I don't have a callsign?
>
> At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
> thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

"And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
made well.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Dwight Stewart]

"N2EY" wrote:
> "Dwight Stewart" writes:
> >
> > (snip)
>
> But you have no negative comments
> for the person who does it.


Negative comments had already been posted by others. I don't kick people
when they're already laying on the ground from the blows of others.


> Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to
> the ARS.
>
> Do you think all possible callsigns are
> appropriate, Dwight?


Beyond the law, I don't think it is my mission in life to decide what is
appropriate for others. If I have a problem with the laws (the callsigns
allowed by the FCC), then my fight is with the lawmakers (the FCC). Whatever
the case, I don't take it upon myself to engage in an ongoing campaign
against those who make choices different then my own. Kim is aware of my
opinion about her callsign (I wouldn't have chosen it myself). Beyond that,
the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. If I felt this is a real
problem, I'd take up the issue of callsigns with the FCC.


> You have had no problem when others
> have used insulting names rather than
> callsigns to refer to me, (snip)


I've never seen anyone use insulting names to refer to you.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

[N2EY]

In article >, Leo >
writes:

>Jim,
>
>Reply follows:
>
>On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Leo
>
>>writes:
>>
>>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, "Kim"
>>>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's
>>>>your
>>>>perception, not my intent.
>>>
>>>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to
>>>acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
>>>forum.
>>
>>I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>
>Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.

Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my
rights were violated.
>>
>>>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
>>>well!
>>
>>I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>
>See above.
>>
>>>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
>>>personal morals and prejudices upon others?
>>
>>Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the same to
>>me.
>>
>>Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my posts?
>
>Of course not -

But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if I write
a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're saying I do *not*
have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".

oh wait - I just did....

>but that does not confer upon you the right to remove
>or alter her personal data without her permission!

"personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her callsign.
In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been only one Kim. There
have been at least 4 Jims, though.
..
>For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....

For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having to write

certain things.

>>>Did anyone here ask you
>>>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
>>>offensive? Certainly not.
>>
>>I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone else can
>>post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I have to repeat it.
>
>>What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?
>
>Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
>callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".

That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote. No one
who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.

>If you aren't
>comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
>someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?

Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.

> Wouldn't
>that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
>with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!

There's nothing illegal about it.

>>Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the
>>original
>>list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even *should* not do
>>the
>>list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to censor *me*.
>>
>>If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included, that's
>>their
>>right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote something I did not.
>
>See above.

Where?

>>>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of
>>>>>the original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

>>>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
>>>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!

>>So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
>
>Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
>Hers, and yours.

I do not see that I have done anything wrong.

>>>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the >
>>>>symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked
>>>>that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.

>>>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
>>>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.

>>Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was their
>>right to do it?
>
>No - but that isn't the issue here.

Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
and judgements.

>Your obvious discomfort with her
>call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
>You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
>consider it improper.

Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?

Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
it angers others.

She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
>
>>>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person
>>>>>has a problem with that.
>>>>
>>>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
>>>>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
>>>>you do not give others.
>>>
>>>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?
>>
>>Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my posts.
>>I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".
>
>Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
>aren't you?

Nope. I'm editing it out.

"Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all. I have
not
done that, and would not if I could.

>Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by
>her fellow amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?

I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own posts is
appropriate behavior.

>Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?

Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility for what I
post.
>
>>Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as "wrong" is
>>really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals and prejudices
>>upon me.

Ahem...
>>
>>>That doesn't sound like
>>>you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
>>>follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.
>>
>>I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
>>inappropriate for the ARS.
>
>That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.

Says who?

FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they generate
enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code tests of
those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the treaty
requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize anyone when
a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.

Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say the FCC
is
wrong?

Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the problems
it has?

Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the rules
changed?

Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it once on
TV?
>
>> She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
>>sequentially. It
>>was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to extinction"
>>that exceeded 3000 posts.
>
>But it is her call - issued to her for her use.

And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.

And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have to use it
here.
>>
>>>>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
>>>>>list.
>>>>
>>>>Done. No problem.
>>>>
>>>>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
>>>>>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
>>>>>malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.
>>>>
>>>>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
>>>>I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
>>>>choice.
>>>
>>>That is not up to you to decide, Jim.
>>
>>Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns are
>>not appropriate?
>
>Of course it is.
>>
>>Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?
>
>Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
>callsigns, not just hers.

Why?

>Do you not think that singling her out the
>way that you did was disrespectful to her?

No.

>Are you that sanctimonious?

No. I'm that honest.
>
>>ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with four-letter
>>suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.
>
>Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
>old four letter combination?

Yes.

>I'd be surprised!

I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why would you
be surprised if they
issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a certain
word. All kinds of
words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by the FCC
too).

>Even the vehicle
>license plate guys have a handle on that one.....

Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.
>>
>>>The FCC could have refused to
>>>issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
>>>motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
>>>freely issue this suffix as well!
>>
>>FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the database, or
>>better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the suffixes immediately
>>before and after are much more common.
>
>Does not prove the point.
>
It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from W5TIS or
W5TIU
>>>
>>>>But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
>>>>is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
>>>>amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
>>>>involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal
>>>>in
>>>>every way but license class.
>>>
>>>Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
>>>to.
>>
>>No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.
>
>I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!

Is Kim equal to me in technical knowldge of ham radio? In historic knowledge?
In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew equipment? At the risk
of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.
>>
>>>As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
>>>vanity callsign, just like you!
>>
>>Of course! And she does use it here.
>>
>>But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not have the
>>right to refrain from doing so?
>
>You may, of course, refrain from using it.

Gee, thanks. ;-)

>But why do you feel that
>you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have an
>issue with it with the rest of the group?

Because they asked.
>
>And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?

No - that's why I don't censor anyone.
>>
>>>(and, up here,
>>
>>(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)
>
>...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
>call signs!

Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.

>>Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....
>>
>>>all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).
>>>
>>Were those calls sequentially issued?
>
>You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether they
>requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.

It makes a difference.
>>
>>>>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your
>>>>choice
>>>>of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
>>>>service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
>>>>sequentially.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>>Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC will,
>>however, issue them if requested through the vanity program.
>
>Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do
>that?

-Because they don't care
-Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the system
-Because they don't want the complaints from those who want such calls
-Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few resources.

>They have total authority over those calls - surely they
>ccontrol them better than that?

Nope.

In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of such
callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".

>>>It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
>>>it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC statement
>>>to the contrary.
>>
>>I refer you to the Callbook and databases.
>
>Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
>exempt from sequential issue?

Their actions are enough to prove the point.
>>
>>>In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
>>>your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
>>>fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.
>>
>>In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an
>>opinion?
>
>Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
>views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.

You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?
>>
>>>>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
>>>>in the best interests of all concerned.
>>>
>>>Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is in
>>>the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
>>>prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
>>>unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
>>>here!
>>
>>Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be done
>>by
>>othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are deciding what
>>is
>>"right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an unavoidable
>>consequence
>>of having an opinion. The only other option is to never express any opinions
>>at all.
>>
>>For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur license
>>should
>>be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on the issue should take
>>precedence over what others think and want. They're saying that the FCC's
>>current rules are incorrect and need to change.
>>
>>And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the code
>>test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and to try to
>>get their
>>will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those who
>>disagree have rights, too.

And that's the way it should be. YMMV
>>
>>>I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
>>>value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.
>>
>>See above about the tests.
>
>??
>
>Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
>publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
>this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
>clearer then! :)
>>
>>What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I *must
>>not*
>>oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are permitted by law.
>>
>>Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?
>>
>
>Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
>impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
>out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
>pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
>There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:
>
>1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
>equal playing field and singling out no one.
>
>2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let
>someone else pick it up should they so choose.

By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to impose
*your* personal standards on *me*

I say there's a third option:

3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.

>It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
>or cannot deal, with something about them.

I have not ostracized Kim.

>What effect to you think
>that doing this would have on Kim?

Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.

>Do you not see that your choice of
>actions would hurt her feelings?

What about *my* feelings?

>Say, you weren't striking out at her
>because she offended you, were you? Of course not!

That's right.
>
>>>If Kim's
>>>callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
>>>entirely.
>>
>>Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
>>with her about callsign choice.
>
>Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
>friends a heck of a lot better than that!

I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a very
select few.
"Acquaintance" would be more accurate.
>>
>>What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by determining
>>how I can post here.
>
>Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
>impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.

Not what I'm doing.
>>
>>>On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
>>>someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
>>>killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!
>>
>>Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone from
>>posting anyhting?
>
>Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
>you did!

I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.
>>
>>> Intentional deletion of
>>>her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
>>>reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
>Sorry to hear that!
>>
>>Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS. IMHO YMMV
>
>And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
>really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a problem
>with.

So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me that I
have to.
>>>
>>>Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
>>>running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called 'access
>>>covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male bias').
>>
>>I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on Usenet
>>as
>>a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I *must* post in a
>>certain way. Why?
>
>Please see the above comments.
>>>
>>>I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
>>>related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word
>>
>>[slang word deleted]
>
>...because you personally have an issue with it! See?
>>
>>Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's
>>not a birdwatcher.
>
>I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but
>she just might be!

Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:

1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny

2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of reactions

She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.

>>>Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.
>>
>>I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.
>
>Yes you did!

No, I did not.

> Kim, I believe....
>>>
I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....

>>>Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio -
>>>as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.
>>
>>This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused
>>to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting names
>-
>>and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
>>disrespectful.
>
>And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?

There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double standard.

>>>Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
>>>typing it, I'm sure I don't know.
>>
>>I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.
>
>Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!

Then why not choose another one?
>>
>>>Whatever it it, I hope you are able
>>>to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
>>>you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.
>>>
>>I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to force
>>*me* to use it here on Usenet.
>>
>>Or do they?
>
>Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!

But you want to force your values on me.
>>
>>Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
>>inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone *must*
>>include that word or phrase in any replies?
>
>Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....

I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!

Thanks for the validation, Leo!
>
>Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections for dinner, and
>they're my favourite! :)
>
Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Dee D. Flint]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> 'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
> WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN
to
> the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
> else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
> on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
> honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
> attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the
world
> was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
> not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a
couple
> of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note
that
> in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
> Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!
>
> The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
> operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
> posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was
my
> callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
> those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks*
like
> I don't have a callsign?
>
> At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
> thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...
>
> Kim W5TIT
>

I pay attention to every single attribute and immediately noticed the
difference in both posts. I elected not to get into the debate and kept my
opinions to myself. However since you seem to think people ignore the
attributes, I decided I must repond to dispel that notion. And as far as
I'm concerned, deliberately making the attribute appear to be something
other than it was happens to be wrong. Making errors in keeping attributes
in long threads happens and is excusable. Choosing to make an attribute
appear something else is not excusable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[Dee D. Flint]

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
et...
> Kim W5TIT wrote:
> > At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as
everyone
> > thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...
>
> "And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
> made well.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>

Mike, as I replied to Kim's post, I noticed it but chose to stay out of the
fight that I knew was almost certain to come.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[Alun]

(N2EY) wrote in
:

> In article >, Leo
> > writes:
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Reply follows:
>>
>>On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Leo
> writes:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Kim" writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected
>>>>>that's your perception, not my intent.
>>>>
>>>>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse
>>>>to acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
>>>>forum.
>>>
>>>I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>>
>>Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.
>
> Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
> names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my
> rights were violated.
>>>
>>>>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as well!
>>>
>>>I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>>
>>See above.
>>>
>>>>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own personal
>>>>morals and prejudices upon others?
>>>
>>>Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the
>>>same to me.
>>>
>>>Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my
>>>posts?
>>
>>Of course not -
>
> But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if
> I write a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're
> saying I do *not* have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".
>
> oh wait - I just did....
>
>>but that does not confer upon you the right to remove or alter her
>>personal data without her permission!
>
> "personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her
> callsign. In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been
> only one Kim. There have been at least 4 Jims, though.
> .
>>For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....
>
> For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having
> to write
>
> certain things.
>
>>>>Did anyone here ask you
>>>>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
>>>>offensive?
>>>> Certainly not.
>>>
>>>I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone
>>>else can post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I
>>>have to repeat it.
>>
>>>What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?
>>
>>Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
>>callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".
>
> That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote. No
> one who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.
>

Unfortunately, I doubt that this is true

>>If you aren't
>>comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
>>someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?
>
> Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
> derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
> in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.
>
>> Wouldn't
>>that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
>>with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!
>
> There's nothing illegal about it.
>
>>>Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the
>>>original list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even
>>>*should* not do the list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to
>>>censor *me*.
>>>
>>>If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included,
>>>that's their right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote
>>>something I did not.
>>
>>See above.
>
> Where?
>
>>>>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the
>>>>>>attributes of the original message simply to include my callsign in
>>>>>>the list.
>
>>>>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
>>>>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!
>
>>>So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
>>
>>Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
>>Hers, and yours.
>
> I do not see that I have done anything wrong.

If you publish a list of hams by callsign, and replace one of them with a
name, there will be very few people indeed who don't perceive this as a
deliberate slight.

>
>>>>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the
>>>>>> symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I
>>>>>chalked that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.
>
>>>>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
>>>>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>
>>>Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was
>>>their right to do it?
>>
>>No - but that isn't the issue here.
>
> Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
> telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
> personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
> what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
> and judgements.
>
>>Your obvious discomfort with her
>>call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
>>You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
>>consider it improper.
>
> Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?

Sure. Just don't expect to get away without retaliation.

>
> Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
> though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
> it angers others.
>
> She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
> to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
>>
>>>>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other
>>>>>>person has a problem with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
>>>>>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
>>>>>you do not give others.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?
>>>
>>>Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my
>>>posts. I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".

If her name was the only one there, I would agree

>>
>>Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
>>aren't you?
>
> Nope. I'm editing it out.
>
> "Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all.
> I have not
> done that, and would not if I could.
>
>>Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by her fellow
>>amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?
>
> I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own posts
> is appropriate behavior.
>
>>Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?
>
> Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility
> for what I post.
>>
>>>Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as
>>>"wrong" is really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals
>>>and prejudices upon me.
>
> Ahem...
>>>
>>>>That doesn't sound like
>>>>you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
>>>>follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.
>>>
>>>I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
>>>inappropriate for the ARS.
>>
>>That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.
>
> Says who?
>
> FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they generate
> enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code tests of
> those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the treaty
> requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize anyone when
> a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.
>
> Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say
> the FCC is
> wrong?
>
> Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the
> problems it has?
>
> Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the
> rules changed?
>
> Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it
> once on TV?
>>
>>> She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
>>>sequentially. It
>>>was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to
>>>extinction" that exceeded 3000 posts.
>>
>>But it is her call - issued to her for her use.
>
> And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.
>
> And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have
> to use it here.
>>>
>>>>>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction
>>>>>>from the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>Done. No problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
>>>>>>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately,
>>>>>>with no malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at
>>>>>>all.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
>>>>>I do not post your callsign because I think you made an
>>>>>inappropriate choice.
>>>>
>>>>That is not up to you to decide, Jim.
>>>
>>>Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns
>>>are not appropriate?
>>
>>Of course it is.
>>>
>>>Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?
>>
>>Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
>>callsigns, not just hers.
>
> Why?

Because you treated her differently from everyone else. If you had listed
us all by name, that would have been the diplomatic thing to have done.

>
>>Do you not think that singling her out the way that you did was
>>disrespectful to her?
>
> No.

It was, Jim.

>
>>Are you that sanctimonious?
>
> No. I'm that honest.
>>
>>>ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with
>>>four-letter suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.
>>
>>Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
>>old four letter combination?
>
> Yes.
>
>>I'd be surprised!
>
> I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why
> would you be surprised if they
> issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a
> certain word. All kinds of
> words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by the
> FCC too).
>
>>Even the vehicle
>>license plate guys have a handle on that one.....
>
> Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.
>>>
>>>>The FCC could have refused to
>>>>issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
>>>>motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
>>>>freely issue this suffix as well!
>>>
>>>FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the
>>>database, or better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the
>>>suffixes immediately before and after are much more common.
>>
>>Does not prove the point.
>>
> It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from
> W5TIS or W5TIU
>>>>
>>>>>But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of
>>>>>us is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things
>>>>>involving amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are
>>>>>probably things involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you.
>>>>>So we arenot equal in every way but license class.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
>>>>to.
>>>
>>>No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.
>>
>>I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!
>
> Is Kim equal to me in technical knowledge of ham radio? In historic
> knowledge? In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew
> equipment? At the risk of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.
>>>
>>>>As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued vanity
>>>>callsign, just like you!
>>>
>>>Of course! And she does use it here.
>>>
>>>But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not
>>>have the right to refrain from doing so?
>>
>>You may, of course, refrain from using it.
>
> Gee, thanks. ;-)
>
>>But why do you feel that
>>you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have an
>>issue with it with the rest of the group?
>
> Because they asked.
>>
>>And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?
>
> No - that's why I don't censor anyone.
>>>
>>>>(and, up here,
>>>
>>>(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)
>>
>>...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
>>call signs!
>
> Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.
>
>>>Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....
>>>
>>>>all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).
>>>>
>>>Were those calls sequentially issued?
>>
>>You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether they
>>requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.
>
> It makes a difference.
>>>
>>>>>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that
>>>>>your choice of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to
>>>>>the amateur radio service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC
>>>>>would not have issued it sequentially.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC
>>>will, however, issue them if requested through the vanity program.
>>
>>Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do that?
>>
>
> -Because they don't care
> -Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the system
> -Because they don't want the complaints from those who want such calls
> -Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few resources.
>
>>They have total authority over those calls - surely they ccontrol them
>>better than that?
>
> Nope.
>
> In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
> replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of
> such callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".
>
>>>>It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
>>>>it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC
>>>>statement to the contrary.
>>>
>>>I refer you to the Callbook and databases.
>>
>>Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
>>exempt from sequential issue?
>
> Their actions are enough to prove the point.
>>>
>>>>In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
>>>>your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
>>>>fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.
>>>
>>>In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an
>>>opinion?
>>
>>Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
>>views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.
>
> You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?
>>>
>>>>>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do,
>>>>>or in the best interests of all concerned.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is
>>>>in the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
>>>>prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
>>>>unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
>>>>here!
>>>
>>>Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be
>>>done by othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are
>>>deciding what is "right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an
>>>unavoidable consequence of having an opinion. The only other option is
>>>to never express any opinions at all.
>>>
>>>For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur
>>>license should be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on
>>>the issue should take precedence over what others think and want.
>>>They're saying that the FCC's current rules are incorrect and need to
>>>change.
>>>
>>>And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the
>>>code test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and
>>>to try to get their
>>>will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those
>>>who disagree have rights, too.
>
> And that's the way it should be. YMMV
>>>
>>>>I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
>>>>value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.
>>>
>>>See above about the tests.
>>
>>??
>>
>>Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
>>publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
>>this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
>>clearer then! :)
>>>
>>>What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I
>>>*must not* oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are
>>>permitted by law.
>>>
>>>Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?
>>>
>>
>>Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
>>impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
>>out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
>>pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
>>There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:
>>
>>1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
>>equal playing field and singling out no one.
>>
>>2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let someone
>>else pick it up should they so choose.
>
> By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to
> impose *your* personal standards on *me*
>
> I say there's a third option:
>
> 3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.
>
>>It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
>>or cannot deal, with something about them.
>
> I have not ostracized Kim.
>
>>What effect to you think that doing this would have on Kim?
>
> Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.
>
>>Do you not see that your choice of actions would hurt her feelings?
>
> What about *my* feelings?
>
>>Say, you weren't striking out at her because she offended you, were
>>you? Of course not!
>
> That's right.
>>
>>>>If Kim's
>>>>callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
>>>>entirely.
>>>
>>>Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
>>>with her about callsign choice.
>>
>>Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
>>friends a heck of a lot better than that!
>
> I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a
> very select few.
> "Acquaintance" would be more accurate.
>>>
>>>What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by
>>>determining how I can post here.
>>
>>Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
>>impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.
>
> Not what I'm doing.
>>>
>>>>On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
>>>>someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
>>>>killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!
>>>
>>>Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone
>>>from posting anyhting?
>>
>>Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
>>you did!
>
> I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.
>>>
>>>> Intentional deletion of
>>>>her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
>>>>reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.
>>>
>>>I disagree.
>>
>>Sorry to hear that!
>>>
>>>Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS.
>>>IMHO YMMV
>>
>>And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
>>really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a problem
>>with.
>
> So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me
> that I have to.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
>>>>running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called
>>>>'access covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male
>>>>bias').
>>>
>>>I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on
>>>Usenet as a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I
>>>*must* post in a certain way. Why?
>>
>>Please see the above comments.
>>>>
>>>>I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
>>>>related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word
>>>
>>>[slang word deleted]
>>
>>...because you personally have an issue with it! See?
>>>
>>>Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's not a
>>>birdwatcher.
>>
>>I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but she
>>just might be!
>
> Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:
>
> 1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny
>
> 2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of
> reactions
>
> She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.
>
>>>>Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.
>>>
>>>I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.
>>
>>Yes you did!
>
> No, I did not.
>
>> Kim, I believe....
>>>>
> I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....
>
>>>>Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio
>>>>- as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.
>>>
>>>This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused
>>>to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting
>>>names - and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
>>>disrespectful.
>>
>>And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?
>
> There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double
> standard.
>
>>>>Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
>>>>typing it, I'm sure I don't know.
>>>
>>>I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.
>>
>>Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!
>
> Then why not choose another one?
>>>
>>>>Whatever it it, I hope you are able
>>>>to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
>>>>you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.
>>>>
>>>I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to
>>>force *me* to use it here on Usenet.
>>>
>>>Or do they?
>>
>>Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!
>
> But you want to force your values on me.
>>>
>>>Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
>>>inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone
>>>*must* include that word or phrase in any replies?
>>
>>Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....
>
> I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!
>
> Thanks for the validation, Leo!
>>
>>Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections

(Breasts)

>>for dinner, and
>>they're my favourite! :)
>>
> Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

[Kim W5TIT]

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "N2EY" wrote:
> > "Dwight Stewart" writes:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> >
> > But you have no negative comments
> > for the person who does it.
>
>
> Negative comments had already been posted by others. I don't kick people
> when they're already laying on the ground from the blows of others.
>

DWIGHT!? (Grin) Puhleeze don't ever think I am "laying on the ground" or
even feel kicked! LOL!!

Kim W5TIT
OH--are you going to get all upset because I snipped the rest of the
original exchange below this point?

[Leo]

Jim,

Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see,
or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim, W5TIT.
Your statements in defense of your conduct are based entirely upon
circular logic, rationalization, contradiction and denial - indicating
that you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your actions
towards a fellow ham here on the group. W5TIT told you straight up
that she felt disrespected by your actions. A simple apology to her
would have been appropriate. The right thing to do.

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

Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the
act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric. Do you believe that these
actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur
service? I suspect that few here join you in that belief.

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

73, Leo

On 11 Jan 2004 13:54:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

>In article >, Leo >
>writes:
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Reply follows:
>>
>>On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Leo
>
>>>writes:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Kim"
>>>>>writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's
>>>>>your
>>>>>perception, not my intent.
>>>>
>>>>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to
>>>>acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
>>>>forum.
>>>
>>>I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>>
>>Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.
>
>Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
>names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my
>rights were violated.
>>>
>>>>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
>>>>well!
>>>
>>>I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>>
>>See above.
>>>
>>>>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
>>>>personal morals and prejudices upon others?
>>>
>>>Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the same to
>>>me.
>>>
>>>Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my posts?
>>
>>Of course not -
>
>But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if I write
>a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're saying I do *not*
>have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".
>
>oh wait - I just did....
>
>>but that does not confer upon you the right to remove
>>or alter her personal data without her permission!
>
>"personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her callsign.
>In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been only one Kim. There
>have been at least 4 Jims, though.
>.
>>For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....
>
>For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having to write
>
>certain things.
>
>>>>Did anyone here ask you
>>>>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
>>>>offensive? Certainly not.
>>>
>>>I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone else can
>>>post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I have to repeat it.
>>
>>>What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?
>>
>>Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
>>callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".
>
>That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote. No one
>who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.
>
>>If you aren't
>>comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
>>someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?
>
>Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
>derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
>in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.
>
>> Wouldn't
>>that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
>>with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!
>
>There's nothing illegal about it.
>
>>>Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the
>>>original
>>>list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even *should* not do
>>>the
>>>list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to censor *me*.
>>>
>>>If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included, that's
>>>their
>>>right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote something I did not.
>>
>>See above.
>
>Where?
>
>>>>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of
>>>>>>the original message simply to include my callsign in the list.
>
>>>>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
>>>>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!
>
>>>So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
>>
>>Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
>>Hers, and yours.
>
>I do not see that I have done anything wrong.
>
>>>>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the >
>>>>>symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked
>>>>>that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.
>
>>>>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
>>>>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>
>>>Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was their
>>>right to do it?
>>
>>No - but that isn't the issue here.
>
>Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
>telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
>personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
>what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
>and judgements.
>
>>Your obvious discomfort with her
>>call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
>>You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
>>consider it improper.
>
>Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?
>
>Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
>though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
>it angers others.
>
>She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
>to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
>>
>>>>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person
>>>>>>has a problem with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
>>>>>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
>>>>>you do not give others.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?
>>>
>>>Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my posts.
>>>I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".
>>
>>Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
>>aren't you?
>
>Nope. I'm editing it out.
>
>"Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all. I have
>not
>done that, and would not if I could.
>
>>Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by
>>her fellow amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?
>
>I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own posts is
>appropriate behavior.
>
>>Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?
>
>Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility for what I
>post.
>>
>>>Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as "wrong" is
>>>really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals and prejudices
>>>upon me.
>
>Ahem...
>>>
>>>>That doesn't sound like
>>>>you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
>>>>follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.
>>>
>>>I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
>>>inappropriate for the ARS.
>>
>>That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.
>
>Says who?
>
>FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they generate
>enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code tests of
>those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the treaty
>requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize anyone when
>a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.
>
>Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say the FCC
>is
>wrong?
>
>Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the problems
>it has?
>
>Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the rules
>changed?
>
>Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it once on
>TV?
>>
>>> She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
>>>sequentially. It
>>>was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to extinction"
>>>that exceeded 3000 posts.
>>
>>But it is her call - issued to her for her use.
>
>And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.
>
>And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have to use it
>here.
>>>
>>>>>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
>>>>>>list.
>>>>>
>>>>>Done. No problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
>>>>>>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
>>>>>>malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
>>>>>I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
>>>>>choice.
>>>>
>>>>That is not up to you to decide, Jim.
>>>
>>>Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns are
>>>not appropriate?
>>
>>Of course it is.
>>>
>>>Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?
>>
>>Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
>>callsigns, not just hers.
>
>Why?
>
>>Do you not think that singling her out the
>>way that you did was disrespectful to her?
>
>No.
>
>>Are you that sanctimonious?
>
>No. I'm that honest.
>>
>>>ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with four-letter
>>>suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.
>>
>>Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
>>old four letter combination?
>
>Yes.
>
>>I'd be surprised!
>
>I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why would you
>be surprised if they
>issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a certain
>word. All kinds of
>words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by the FCC
>too).
>
>>Even the vehicle
>>license plate guys have a handle on that one.....
>
>Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.
>>>
>>>>The FCC could have refused to
>>>>issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
>>>>motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
>>>>freely issue this suffix as well!
>>>
>>>FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the database, or
>>>better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the suffixes immediately
>>>before and after are much more common.
>>
>>Does not prove the point.
>>
>It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from W5TIS or
>W5TIU
>>>>
>>>>>But we hams are not "equa in every way but license class". Each of us
>>>>>is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving
>>>>>amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things
>>>>>involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal
>>>>>in
>>>>>every way but license class.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
>>>>to.
>>>
>>>No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.
>>
>>I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!
>
>Is Kim equal to me in technical knowledge of ham radio? In historic knowledge?
>In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew equipment? At the risk
>of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.
>>>
>>>>As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
>>>>vanity callsign, just like you!
>>>
>>>Of course! And she does use it here.
>>>
>>>But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not have the
>>>right to refrain from doing so?
>>
>>You may, of course, refrain from using it.
>
>Gee, thanks. ;-)
>
>>But why do you feel that
>>you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have an
>>issue with it with the rest of the group?
>
>Because they asked.
>>
>>And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?
>
>No - that's why I don't censor anyone.
>>>
>>>>(and, up here,
>>>
>>>(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)
>>
>>...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
>>call signs!
>
>Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.
>
>>>Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....
>>>
>>>>all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).
>>>>
>>>Were those calls sequentially issued?
>>
>>You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether they
>>requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.
>
>It makes a difference.
>>>
>>>>>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your
>>>>>choice
>>>>>of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio
>>>>>service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it
>>>>>sequentially.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC will,
>>>however, issue them if requested through the vanity program.
>>
>>Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do
>>that?
>
>-Because they don't care
>-Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the system
>-Because they don't want the complaints from those who want such calls
>-Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few resources.
>
>>They have total authority over those calls - surely they
>>ccontrol them better than that?
>
>Nope.
>
>In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
>replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of such
>callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".
>
>>>>It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
>>>>it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC statement
>>>>to the contrary.
>>>
>>>I refer you to the Callbook and databases.
>>
>>Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
>>exempt from sequential issue?
>
>Their actions are enough to prove the point.
>>>
>>>>In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
>>>>your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
>>>>fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.
>>>
>>>In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an
>>>opinion?
>>
>>Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
>>views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.
>
>You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?
>>>
>>>>>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or
>>>>>in the best interests of all concerned.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is in
>>>>the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
>>>>prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
>>>>unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
>>>>here!
>>>
>>>Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be done
>>>by
>>>othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are deciding what
>>>is
>>>"right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an unavoidable
>>>consequence
>>>of having an opinion. The only other option is to never express any opinions
>>>at all.
>>>
>>>For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur license
>>>should
>>>be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on the issue should take
>>>precedence over what others think and want. They're saying that the FCC's
>>>current rules are incorrect and need to change.
>>>
>>>And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the code
>>>test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and to try to
>>>get their
>>>will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those who
>>>disagree have rights, too.
>
>And that's the way it should be. YMMV
>>>
>>>>I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
>>>>value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.
>>>
>>>See above about the tests.
>>
>>??
>>
>>Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
>>publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
>>this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
>>clearer then! :)
>>>
>>>What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I *must
>>>not*
>>>oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are permitted by law.
>>>
>>>Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?
>>>
>>
>>Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
>>impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
>>out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
>>pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
>>There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:
>>
>>1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
>>equal playing field and singling out no one.
>>
>>2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let
>>someone else pick it up should they so choose.
>
>By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to impose
>*your* personal standards on *me*
>
>I say there's a third option:
>
>3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.
>
>>It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
>>or cannot deal, with something about them.
>
>I have not ostracized Kim.
>
>>What effect to you think
>>that doing this would have on Kim?
>
>Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.
>
>>Do you not see that your choice of
>>actions would hurt her feelings?
>
>What about *my* feelings?
>
>>Say, you weren't striking out at her
>>because she offended you, were you? Of course not!
>
>That's right.
>>
>>>>If Kim's
>>>>callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
>>>>entirely.
>>>
>>>Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
>>>with her about callsign choice.
>>
>>Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
>>friends a heck of a lot better than that!
>
>I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a very
>select few.
>"Acquaintance" would be more accurate.
>>>
>>>What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by determining
>>>how I can post here.
>>
>>Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
>>impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.
>
>Not what I'm doing.
>>>
>>>>On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
>>>>someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
>>>>killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!
>>>
>>>Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone from
>>>posting anyhting?
>>
>>Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
>>you did!
>
>I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.
>>>
>>>> Intentional deletion of
>>>>her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
>>>>reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.
>>>
>>>I disagree.
>>
>>Sorry to hear that!
>>>
>>>Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS. IMHO YMMV
>>
>>And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
>>really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a problem
>>with.
>
>So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me that I
>have to.
>>>>
>>>>Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
>>>>running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called 'access
>>>>covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male bias').
>>>
>>>I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on Usenet
>>>as
>>>a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I *must* post in a
>>>certain way. Why?
>>
>>Please see the above comments.
>>>>
>>>>I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
>>>>related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word
>>>
>>>[slang word deleted]
>>
>>...because you personally have an issue with it! See?
>>>
>>>Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's
>>>not a birdwatcher.
>>
>>I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but
>>she just might be!
>
>Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:
>
>1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny
>
>2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of reactions
>
>She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.
>
>>>>Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.
>>>
>>>I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.
>>
>>Yes you did!
>
>No, I did not.
>
>> Kim, I believe....
>>>>
>I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....
>
>>>>Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio -
>>>>as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.
>>>
>>>This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused
>>>to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting names
>>-
>>>and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
>>>disrespectful.
>>
>>And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?
>
>There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double standard.
>
>>>>Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
>>>>typing it, I'm sure I don't know.
>>>
>>>I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.
>>
>>Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!
>
>Then why not choose another one?
>>>
>>>>Whatever it it, I hope you are able
>>>>to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
>>>>you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.
>>>>
>>>I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to force
>>>*me* to use it here on Usenet.
>>>
>>>Or do they?
>>
>>Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!
>
>But you want to force your values on me.
>>>
>>>Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
>>>inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone *must*
>>>include that word or phrase in any replies?
>>
>>Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....
>
>I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!
>
>Thanks for the validation, Leo!
>>
>>Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections for dinner, and
>>they're my favourite! :)
>>
>Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY

[Kim W5TIT]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Leo
>
> writes:
>
> >Jim,
> >
> >Reply follows:
> >
> >On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
> >
> >>In article >, Leo
> >
> >>writes:
> >>
> >>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article >, "Kim"
> >>>>writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>>
> >>>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's
> >>>>your
> >>>>perception, not my intent.
> >>>
> >>>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to
> >>>acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
> >>>forum.
> >>
> >>I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?
> >
> >Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.
>
> Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
> names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my
> rights were violated.
> >>
> >>>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
> >>>well!
> >>
> >>I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?
> >
> >See above.
> >>
> >>>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
> >>>personal morals and prejudices upon others?
> >>
> >>Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the same
to
> >>me.
> >>
> >>Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my
posts?
> >
> >Of course not -
>
> But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if I
write
> a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're saying I do
*not*
> have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".
>
> oh wait - I just did....
>

GASP! Is that sarcasm from you, Jim?! No way!

> >
> >but that does not confer upon you the right to remove
> >or alter her personal data without her permission!
>
> "personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her callsign.
> In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been only one Kim.
There
> have been at least 4 Jims, though.
> .

(original attributed "period" left above). And, Jim, by the same token
"everyone here" (a very general statement I might add--coming from you)
knows you disagree with my callsign and "everyone here" knows that you have
generally refrained from repeating it in a post. "Everyone here" knows
that. But "no one there" may know that when the post is encountered through
a search, casual observation, new folks, whatever.

> > <---- these two attributes inserted to "lock in" the attribution (I do
that all the time, nearly every post)
> >For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....
>
> For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having to
write
>
> certain things.
>
> >>>Did anyone here ask you
> >>>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
> >>>offensive? Certainly not.
> >>
> >>I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone else
can
> >>post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I have to repeat
it.
> >
> >>What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?
> >
> >Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
> >callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".
>
> That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote. No
one
> who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.
>

My perception says you *did* change the meaning of something I submitted
(i.e., wrote). I intend for anyone, *anyone* looking at that list to see
the same, the *exact same* thing in each and everyone's submission. No else
had to ask you to include their callsign: you made the conscious decision to
"just" insert everyone's callsign--*but mine.* Therefore, there is an
implied "difference" to a casual observer. I do not wish my submission to
be any different from anyone else's, as the difference could mean to be
taken as negative or positive--and whatever impression it makes is not
important to me. I don't want there to *be any difference* between my
submission, oh: *as an amateur radio operator*, as any other amateur radio
operator.

If Len Anderson, for example, submitted his prediction of a date that CW
testing will be removed from the amateur licensing process, a) would you
insert his submission, b) don't you find his whole general nature abhorrent
and would you insert his submission anyway and, c) would you insert his
first and last name, just first name, etc?

> ><--- these attributes inserted
> >If you aren't
> >comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
> >someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?
>
> Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
> derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
> in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.
>

You cannot, on one hand, state that my callsign is a bad thing for the
ARS--and you did state that--then, on the other hand, state that you have no
prejudice. You *do* have prejudice and you demonstrate it every time you
delete my callsign from a post. I've never (ahem, never) noticed if you
keep my "signature" to my posts when you are replying to them, Jim. Do you?
Or is my callsign just as offensive then as when I *intend* to include
myself as an amateur radio in a list you have *generally* invited people to
join? You have never stated "any offensive callsigns will not be listed."
You have never stated, "Kim, I will include you in the list if you wish, but
I will not include your callsign." You've actually never stated anything as
to why you were refraining from submitting my prediction with my callsign
*ATTRIBUTED* to it. You deliberately change the intention of my message by
leaving my callsign out. *You*, Jim, did the *FIRST* deleting of
attributions and, I might add, you have continued to do it for--what--over a
year, about a year, somewhere around there.

> ><---these attributes inserted
> > Wouldn't
> >that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
> >with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!
>
> There's nothing illegal about it.
>
> >>Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the
> >>original
> >>list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even *should* not
do
> >>the
> >>list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to censor *me*.
> >>
> >>If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included, that's
> >>their
> >>right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote something I did
not.
> >
> >See above.
>
> Where?
>
> >>>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the
attributes of
> >>>>>the original message simply to include my callsign in the list.
>
> >>>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
> >>>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!
>
> >>So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
> >
> >Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
> >Hers, and yours.
>
> I do not see that I have done anything wrong.
>

Of course not. You probably *don't* have any prejudice where your own
decsions and actions have been made. But, by my perception, you are *JUST
AS WRONG* to take away--or leave out--*ATTRIBUTION TO MY CALLSIGN* as I am
to take away--or leave out--attribution characters in an newsgroup post. I
daresay, though, your deletion is far more offensive than mine. The basis,
meaning, and original message and intent of that message was in no way
harmed or changed when I added my callsign to the list. None. Except,
perhaps, that it then could have looked like you had (God forbid) typed my
callsign.

Your deletion--or leaving out, in this case--deliberately makes it look like
I have no callsign.

> >>>><---these attributes inserted
> >>>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the >
> >>>>symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I
chalked
> >>>>that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.
>
> >>>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
> >>>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>
> >>Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was their
> >>right to do it?
> >
> >No - but that isn't the issue here.
>

I agree. That isn't the issue for me, either. I think the real issue is
exhibiting a form of respect for another individual who has earned the right
to have a callsign attributed to her--*WHETHER OR NOT* you agree with the
callsign. The one thing that Larry Roll has never, ever done--to his credit
arrrghhhh, yes I said that--is "strip" me of my callsign. You have, Jim,
and your actions are wrong. They are not only wrong, they are meanspirited
and, to me, hateful.

> <---this attribute inserted
> Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
> telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
> personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
> what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
> and judgements.
>
> >Your obvious discomfort with her
> >call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
> >You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
> >consider it improper.
>
> Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?
>

No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have
made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and
was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as
every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think
you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign.
Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join, yet
you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone
else.

> <---this attribute inserted
> Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
> though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
> it angers others.
>
> She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
> to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
> <---this attribute inserted

You do not have the right to list me "differently" than any other amateur
radio operator. You have the right to refrain from having my callsign in a
post, I could agree on that. But NOT a list.

> >
> >>>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other
person
> >>>>>has a problem with that.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
> >>>>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
> >>>>you do not give others.
> >>>
> >>>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?
> >>
> >>Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my
posts.
> >>I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".
> >
> >Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
> >aren't you?
>
> Nope. I'm editing it out.
>

Worse. To censor would be to refrain from REPOSTING any submissions wherein
I had added my prediction. That would have been far more respectable. My
response would have been to ask you why you were not including me; you would
have explained, and I would have respected--fully--your decision to act on a
belief you have in a respectable manner. I do not respect your deliberate
act to deny me listed as an amateur radio operator in a list of other
amateur radio operators.

>
> "Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all. I
have
> not
> done that, and would not if I could.
>
> >Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by
> >her fellow amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?
>
> I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own posts is
> appropriate behavior.
>

Then, you would not be able to respond to any of my *OTHER POSTS*, Jim.
Because each time you respond to a post from and *do not* remove my callsign
from my original post, then you are "proliferating" my callsign--even more
so, I might add, than when it would be in this thread, probably. This
thread has only been this active because of this debate that is going on. I
haven't checked, but do you deleted my callsign from replies to posts from
me? You'd be leaving behind my name so people would still know someone
named Kim has originally submitted the post. At any rate, deleting my
callsign from a post would follow along with your reasoning above; that to
do so would minimize the exposure to my callsign. And, I daresay, that to
completely follow along with that reasoning and have it be valid and
accepted as true and logical reasoning, then you would need to refrain from
*any* post wherein my callsign is evidenced.

> ><---these attributes inserted
> >Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?
>
> Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility for
what I
> post.
> >
> >>Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as "wrong"
is
> >>really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals and
prejudices
> >>upon me.
>
> Ahem...
> >>
> >>>That doesn't sound like
> >>>you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not
> >>>follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.
> >>
> >>I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
> >>inappropriate for the ARS.
> >
> >That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.
>
> Says who?
> <---this attribute inserted

Well, I think Leo just said it. And, I agree.

>
> FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they generate
> enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code tests of
> those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the treaty
> requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize anyone when
> a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.
>
> Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say the
FCC
> is
> wrong?
>

You did not say that the FCC is wrong for issuing my callsign. You said my
callsign is inappropriate for the ARS. It may be (and I wholeheartedly
disagree with you), but it is not for you--as an individual and certainly as
an amateur radio operator--to disassociate me from ham radio as an amateur
radio operator by leaving off my callsign from something in which I have
*intended* for it to be.

> <---this attribute inserted
> Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the
problems
> it has?
>

No. Not wrong at all. But, it would be wrong of you to delete a "name"
someone goes by from a list of names in which people might be expressing
their agreement or disagreement, simply because you disagree with the way it
sounds or even that it might be risque. It would incorrect of you to delete
or refuse to attribute their name to them for any reason.

> <---this attribute inserted
> Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the rules
> changed?
>

Not at all. And, I'd imagine that those who are so driven, are actively
involved by contacting the appropriate agencies and departments and by
active debate to state their cause and purpose. However, again, it would be
incorrect for someone to keep a name or callsign (in this case) from a list
in which they intended their name or callsign to appear.

> <---this attribute inserted
> Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it once
on
> TV?
>

I could drone on, but hopefully the point has been made.

> >
> >> She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
> >>sequentially. It
> >>was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to
extinction"
> >>that exceeded 3000 posts.
> >
> >But it is her call - issued to her for her use.
>
> And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.
>

If I *had* used it regularly, once in a while, or every so often, on the
air, would that have changed anything here? I think not, so don't bother
using it. Regardless, it is my callsign and I thought it would be listed
when I originally submitted my prediction.

> <---this attribute inserted
> And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have to
use it
> here.
> >>

Nope. You sure don't. But, it would be nice in the future if you caution
that any amatuer radio operator, with whose callsign you disagree, who
submits something with the idea that he/she will be listed just as everyone
else, *will not* be treated in such a manner.

> >>>>><---these attributes inserted
> >>>>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from
the
> >>>>>list.
> >>>>
> >>>>Done. No problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
> >>>>>way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with
no
> >>>>>malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But
> >>>>I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate
> >>>>choice.
> >>>
> >>>That is not up to you to decide, Jim.
> >>
> >>Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns
are
> >>not appropriate?
> >
> >Of course it is.
> >>
> >>Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?
> >
> >Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
> >callsigns, not just hers.
>
> Why?
>

For the reasons stated by me in this post, for many.

> ><---these attributes inserted
> >Do you not think that singling her out the
> >way that you did was disrespectful to her?
>
> No.
>

I do. And, it is my perception that counts--although it's quite obvious
that others have at least some degree of concern in this area as well.

> ><---these attributes inserted
> >Are you that sanctimonious?
>
> No. I'm that honest.
> >
> >>ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with
four-letter
> >>suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.
> >
> >Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
> >old four letter combination?
>
> Yes.
>

I do not.

> ><---these attributes inserted
> >I'd be surprised!
>
> I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why would
you
> be surprised if they
> issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a
certain
> word. All kinds of
> words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by the
FCC
> too).
>

Why is my callsign such a shock? Forget any reason that someone might
request it. I say that becasue, keep in mind that Michael (I think his name
was) requested and had K2TIT because it was the closest he could come to
commemorating the Tet Offensive. So, regardless of *why* someone might
request it, why the shock that the FCC would issue it? The mere word "tit"
or even the tit itself is not vulgar. Good heavens, if you think it is then
I am the one who is shocked! The word is not intended to be used as a
nickname on the amateur bands; Indeed, I have sharply offended people who
have done that. The full callsign is all that is ever responded to, on the
air anyway.

And, mainly, and the thing *everyone* always likes to ignore is that, yes,
the callsign was requested by me on a dare. HOWEVER, it was a dare *after*
I made the verbal observation that if I were to ever request a *VANITY*
callsign, it would certainly be associated with something of vanity--not
simply my initials. As you will recall, the most important part of that
story--and it is a true one--is that a) I had never desired to get a vanity
call, b) was mentioning to my fellow hams [men] on the air that it was a
pity they had no more creativity than to simply request their initials and,
c) that if I were to request a callsign it would be related to my "vanity."
Anyone who knew me (and the all did) personally knew exactly what I was
inferring by that comment. Were I as famous as Dolly Parton, it would be
for the same reason she is--minus that I am a performer (I am not). My
unique callsign is unique because it is a woman's callsign who knows that
others perceive first in me, my tits. My intellect, beauty, wit, charm,
rogue behavior, honesty in dealing with all humas and nature, and very, very
opinionated nature all come secondary to the fact that, on initial gaze, I
am a large titted woman. And, my callsign uniquely says, "get the hell over
it, there's a person here to be reckoned with." If anyone does not like the
way I *like* and *prefer* to relay that message, then tough titties (and
they are not).

If anyone else (and here's your argument coming back on ya) *perceives* my
callsign to be vulgar, that is *their* perception. It is not my intention.
If anyone else becomes deragotory with my callsign, as Larry, Dick, Dave,
Waddles/ULX, and others have done in this newsgroup; I daresay your problem
is with them for they are the ones acting in a vulgar nature.

> ><---these attributes inserted
> >Even the vehicle
> >license plate guys have a handle on that one.....
>
> Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.
> >>
> >>>The FCC could have refused to
> >>>issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the
> >>>motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one)
> >>>freely issue this suffix as well!
> >>
> >>FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the
database, or
> >>better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the suffixes immediately
> >>before and after are much more common.
> >
> >Does not prove the point.
> >
> It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from W5TIS
or
> W5TIU
>

Or, K2TIT

> >>><---these attributes inserted
> >>>
> >>>>But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us
> >>>>is beter at some things than others. I'm sure there are things
involving
> >>>>amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably
things
> >>>>involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not
equal
> >>>>in
> >>>>every way but license class.
> >>>
> >>>Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring
> >>>to.
> >>
> >>No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.
> >
> >I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!
>
> Is Kim equal to me in technical knowledge of ham radio? In historic
knowledge?
> In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew equipment? At the risk
> of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.
> >>
> >>>As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
> >>>vanity callsign, just like you!
> >>
> >>Of course! And she does use it here.
> >>
> >>But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not have
the
> >>right to refrain from doing so?
> >
> >You may, of course, refrain from using it.
>
> Gee, thanks. ;-)
>

But, you do not have the right to deliberately disassociate my callsign from
me in a situation where I am representing myself as a ham radio operator
among other ham radio operators with like actions. We are all participating
in the same poll, "The Pool." We are all submitting our ideas, and every
amateur radio operator--but me--has had their submission listed with
association to their callsign.

> ><---attributes inserted
> >But why do you feel that
> >you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have an
> >issue with it with the rest of the group?
>
> Because they asked.
> >
> >And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?
>
> No - that's why I don't censor anyone.
>

Sometimes, censorship is quite appropriate. I think censorship of my
submission would have been more appropriate, and respectful, than to add my
"name" to the list with a submission of other amateur radio operators where
their callsigns are listed.

> >>
> >>>(and, up here,
> >>
> >>(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)
> >
> >...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
> >call signs!
>
> Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.
>
> >>Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....
> >>
> >>>all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).
> >>>
> >>Were those calls sequentially issued?
> >
> >You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether they
> >requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.
>
> It makes a difference.
> <---attribute inserted

To *you*, Jim and some others. Not to me, not Leo, not to some others.
That someone gets, or even requests--doesn't matter--a callsign, it behooves
you as a fellow amateur to respect that person as an amateur radio operator
unless and until the licensing agency decides they cannot be an amateur
radio operator any more. Note I did not say you have to respect that person
as a person. I have absolutely no respect in any way for Larry Roll, Dave
Heil, Waddles/ULX, and quite a few others actually. In fact I regard them
with pure disdain. However, they are amateur radio operators and no one
outside the FCC as the granting authority, can take that away from them.
And, as fellow amateur radio operators, they deserve my respect. *If* (and
that is a big if) I ever had to encounter them on the air, I would regard
them and treat them with the same respect that I have for every other
amateur radio operator.

Even here in this area, when we had two proven fake Navy SEAL amateurs
(proven by the organization that investigates that kind of stuff), and I was
the only one who took them on as idiots, I never disrespected them on the
air with rude remarks or insulting behavior. They would come on the air and
call me names, try to scare me, deliberately violate nearly every R&R there
is regarding transmission, but I never did the same to them. I refrained
from communicating with them and would not respond to their childish, impish
behavior. One day, the last transmission ever made on the air to either of
them, I reminded one that the frequency was mine--which is proper operating
practice and still gives them the *appearance* of respect as an amateur.

> >>
> >>>>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your
> >>>>choice
> >>>>of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur
radio
> >>>>service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued
it
> >>>>sequentially.
> >>>
> >>>Why not?
> >>
> >>Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC
will,
> >>however, issue them if requested through the vanity program.
> >
> >Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do
> >that?
>
> -Because they don't care
> -Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the system
> -Because they don't want the complaints from those who want such calls
> -Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few resources.
>

I feel it is becuase there may be a thought in their mind that someone might
be embarrassed to have a callsign like that--and that is very nice of them
to carry out issuing the call as one that might cause embarrassment to
someone. They do care. Even though callsigns are issued by computer, it's
obvious someone looks at them, because there are some set aside, as you say.
I think the callsigns like mine are simply set aside to be requested, rather
than sequentially issued, because they may cause embarrassment to
someone--or maybe would even cause embarrassment to the FCC if someone
asked, "why in the world would you have given me such a call?"

> ><---attributes inserted
> >They have total authority over those calls - surely they
> >ccontrol them better than that?
>
> Nope.
>
> In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
> replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of such
> callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".
>

No, his very general statement--in specific reference to activities on the
air, I might add--about my callsign and other behaviors in the ARS (related,
as I said, to on the air activities) could move the ARS one step closer to
extinction. I happen to totally disagree with him. There is something
about Riley that Larry doesn't understand, by the way, Riley offered his
comments *as a person* not as an authority of the FCC. Big difference. The
FCC officially has no remark on my callsign other than, when asked, to state
that they do not legislate or regulate callsigns (something to that affect
anyway--it was a long time ago that we had communication together).

It's also quite obvious that Riley is wrong. The ARS is still around, sitll
healthy, and has even *gained* respect of important groups and agencies as a
viable organization of people ready and capable to serve, if called upon to
do so. The ARS is just fine and my callsign, nor the behaviors of idiots on
the air, are moving it closer to extinction. There is not even a first step
toward extinction of the ARS.

> >>><---attributes inserted
> >>>It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
> >>>it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC statement
> >>>to the contrary.
> >>
> >>I refer you to the Callbook and databases.
> >
> >Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
> >exempt from sequential issue?
>
> Their actions are enough to prove the point.
> >>
> >>>In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
> >>>your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
> >>>fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.
> >>
> >>In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an
> >>opinion?
> >
> >Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
> >views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.
>
> You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?
>

Why protest in an arena where the protest goes inactionable? Your protest
to me will have no effect, whatsoever, in having me change my callsign.
Even your refusal to list my callsign as an amateur radio operator with a
submission, among other amateur radio operators with a submission, will have
no positive effect on me changing my callsign.

You should simply stick to the argument that you find my callsign
inappropriate. That is the strongest (even at its weakest) argument you can
offer. To try and submit your actions as a demonstrable protest falls way
short. At least in my opinion.

> >>
> >>>>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do,
or
> >>>>in the best interests of all concerned.
> >>>
> >>>Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is in
> >>>the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would
> >>>prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and
> >>>unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else
> >>>here!
> >>
> >>Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be
done
> >>by
> >>othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are deciding
what
> >>is
> >>"right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an unavoidable
> >>consequence
> >>of having an opinion. The only other option is to never express any
opinions
> >>at all.
> >>
> >>For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur license
> >>should
> >>be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on the issue should
take
> >>precedence over what others think and want. They're saying that the
FCC's
> >>current rules are incorrect and need to change.
> >>
> >>And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the
code
> >>test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and to try
to
> >>get their
> >>will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those
who
> >>disagree have rights, too.
>
> And that's the way it should be. YMMV
> >>
> >>>I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own
> >>>value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.
> >>
> >>See above about the tests.
> >
> >??
> >
> >Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
> >publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
> >this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
> >clearer then! :)
> >>
> >>What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I
*must
> >>not*
> >>oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are permitted by law.
> >>
> >>Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?
> >>
> >
> >Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
> >impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
> >out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
> >pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
> >There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:
> >
> >1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
> >equal playing field and singling out no one.
> >

Absolutely. I agree. Or, state that any amateur's callsign deemed as
inappropriate by you will not be listed in your poll.

> ><---attributes inserted
> >2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let
> >someone else pick it up should they so choose.
>
> By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to impose
> *your* personal standards on *me*
>
> I say there's a third option:
>
> 3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.
>

Which falls short of reasonable in any way.

> ><---attributes inserted
> >It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
> >or cannot deal, with something about them.
>
> I have not ostracized Kim.
>

You have ostracized me as a valid amateur radio operator by refusing to
include my callsign with my submission. You have ostracized me by treating
my submission as an amateur radio operator differently than you treated a
submission by any other amateur radio operator.

You have participated in ostracization (is that a word?) :)

> ><---attributes inserted
> >What effect to you think
> >that doing this would have on Kim?
>
> Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.
>

Oh, Jim. Puhleeze! Surely, surely you know way better than that!!!

> ><---attributes inserted
> >Do you not see that your choice of
> >actions would hurt her feelings?
>
> What about *my* feelings?
>

My feelings are not hurt, by the way. I could actually care less about the
issue of whether my callsign is on the list or not. However, the reason *I*
am persuing this as a topic of interest will be revealed at the end of this
post. <snicker> Not to minimize the input of my ideas: I am representing
exacly how I think about the issue! I am just not hurt at all by the
exclusion of my callsign from the list.

> ><---attributes inserted
> >Say, you weren't striking out at her
> >because she offended you, were you? Of course not!
>
> That's right.
> >
> >>>If Kim's
> >>>callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
> >>>entirely.
> >>
> >>Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
> >>with her about callsign choice.
> >

Thank you. And, I don't think you're a bad person, either; nor are you my
enemy.

> ><---attributes inserted
> >Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
> >friends a heck of a lot better than that!
>
> I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a very
> select few.
> "Acquaintance" would be more accurate.
> >>

Exactly. Very few people are those whom I would consider "friends."
Certainly not someone I only have interaction with over the computer or even
amateur radio.

> >><---attributes inserted
> >>What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by
determining
> >>how I can post here.
> >
> >Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
> >impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.
>
> Not what I'm doing.
> >>
> >>>On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
> >>>someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the
> >>>killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!
> >>
> >>Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone from
> >>posting anyhting?
> >

You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur radio
operators in a list where you treated them differently (by listing them with
a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of my callsign, me from
being viewed as an amateur radio among other amateur radio operators in a
list in which such omission could easily be taken out of context, I might
add.

> ><---attributes inserted
> >Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
> >you did!
>
> I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.
> >>
> >>> Intentional deletion of
> >>>her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a
> >>>reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.
> >>
> >>I disagree.
> >
> >Sorry to hear that!
> >>
> >>Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS. IMHO
YMMV
> >
> >And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
> >really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a problem
> >with.
>
> So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me
that I
> have to.
> >>>
> >>>Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
> >>>running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called 'access
> >>>covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male bias').
> >>
> >>I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on
Usenet
> >>as
> >>a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I *must* post in a
> >>certain way. Why?
> >
> >Please see the above comments.
> >>>
> >>>I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
> >>>related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word
> >>
> >>[slang word deleted]
> >
> >...because you personally have an issue with it! See?
> >>
> >>Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's
> >>not a birdwatcher.
> >
> >I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but
> >she just might be!
>
> Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:
>
> 1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny
>
> 2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of
reactions
>

Oh, I thought you were going to say that my two, obvious, prominent reasons
were my tits. Because those were the two obvious, prominent reasons =:o

> <---attribute inserted
> She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.
>

Uh, what does a picture of me, driving a car, from the shoulder area up,
have to do with my tits? Don't tell me you could "tell" by that picture
that I had big tits! Oh, no! It's worse than I thought! ; )

That'd be about like Larry being able to tell I'm fat (which I'm not) just
by looking at that picture!

> >>><---attributes inserted
> >>>Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.
> >>
> >>I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.
> >
> >Yes you did!
>
> No, I did not.
>
> > Kim, I believe....
> >>>
> I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....
>
> >>>Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio -
> >>>as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example.
> >>
> >>This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused
> >>to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting
names
> >-

Then your issue is with them.

> >><---attributes inserted
> >>and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
> >>disrespectful.
> >
> >And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?
>
> There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double standard.
>
> >>>Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
> >>>typing it, I'm sure I don't know.
> >>
> >>I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.
> >

That's a good "Kim" response! <GRIN>

> ><---attributes inserted
> >Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!
>
> Then why not choose another one?
> <---attributes inserted

Oh goodness!!! My callsign is so uniquely me how could I ever do that?

> >>
> >>>Whatever it it, I hope you are able
> >>>to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and
> >>>you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.
> >>>
> >>I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to
force
> >>*me* to use it here on Usenet.
> >>

However, you did not let anyone know, up front when the poll was first
issued, that any inappropriateness would be looked for and dealt with
accordingly. I submitted a prediction and do have the right and, feel
correctly, expectation that my prediction would be listed just like every
other amateur radio operator's.

My behavior on this newsgroup has always been blunt and honest. You could
have even publicly said something to me about my callsign not be included
and, as I would expect from you, asking if I would like not to particpate.
That would have been so Jim/N2EY that I believe I have come to know. But,
for some reason, your exhibited nature was not forthcoming here, and I don't
know why--may not even be anything to it. But, I can see you posting a
reply to my prediction that you would not be including my callsign--and
would I like to withdraw.

> >><---attributes inserted
> >>Or do they?
> >
> >Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!
>
> But you want to force your values on me.
> >>
> >>Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
> >>inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone *must*
> >>include that word or phrase in any replies?
> >
> >Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....
>
> I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!
>
> Thanks for the validation, Leo!
> >
> >Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections for dinner, and
> >they're my favourite! :)
> >
> Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

Now, for the real reason I decided to engage as I have the last couple of
weeks. Remember, Jim, how I used to get so insulted when you would seem to
"lead" someone into a corner they could not get out of? Well, this thread,
and the lack of your treating my submission as any other amateur radio
operator's became my path to doing the same thing to you. Not out of
meanness, mind you, not at all. Out of pure fun.

I feel you do lead, by way of artful argument by the way, people into
corners they don't think they can get out of. This was my answer to
that--because I really do feel I waited long enough (practically a year),
acted often enough (giving you every opportunity to act as I would have
thought you would act, and participated strictly as a submitter (I engaged
in no comments until recently, and those only to request that you include my
submission with my callsign). It is even uncharacteristic of me to get
involved to this level (being listed among the debaters over the CW testing
issue) with this topic.

As I said, I would have thought of your nature that you would see my
submission, and let me know that you would list it but without my callsign,
and give me the opportunity to withdraw inclusion. Does anyone else agree
that this would have been something one could reasonably have expected from
Jim?

Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really do
have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you should
have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list. But, my greater
purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated feeling I used to have
when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get out of. Maybe you don't feel
boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at
least it looked that way to me in this post!

Kim W5TIT!!!!!!!

[Kim W5TIT]

"Dee D. Flint" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> ...
> [snip]
> > 'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
> > WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN
> to
> > the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no
one
> > else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were
made
> > on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And,
I
> > honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
> > attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the
> world
> > was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there
or
> > not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a
> couple
> > of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note
> that
> > in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
> > Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!
> >
> > The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham
radio
> > operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he
had
> > posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was
> my
> > callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
> > those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks*
> like
> > I don't have a callsign?
> >
> > At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as
everyone
> > thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...
> >
> > Kim W5TIT
> >
>
> I pay attention to every single attribute and immediately noticed the
> difference in both posts. I elected not to get into the debate and kept
my
> opinions to myself. However since you seem to think people ignore the
> attributes, I decided I must repond to dispel that notion. And as far as
> I'm concerned, deliberately making the attribute appear to be something
> other than it was happens to be wrong. Making errors in keeping
attributes
> in long threads happens and is excusable. Choosing to make an attribute
> appear something else is not excusable.
>
> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>

You must have missed where I said, "as" paid attention to, Dee! I am sure
some do as you do. I am sure many more do not.

Kim W5TIT

[KØHB]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote

> No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have
> made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and
> was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as
> every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think
> you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign.
> Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join,
yet
> you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone
> else.
>
> You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur radio
> operators in a list where you treated them differently (by listing them
with
> a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of my callsign, me from
> being viewed as an amateur radio among other amateur radio operators in a
> list in which such omission could easily be taken out of context, I might
> add.
>
>
> Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really do
> have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you should
> have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list. But, my
greater
> purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated feeling I used to have
> when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get out of. Maybe you don't
feel
> boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at
> least it looked that way to me in this post!



Kim ---> Jim has every right to not include your callsign in his messages.

Jim ---> Kim has every right to feel whatever she feels about that, and to
post messages which make her "feel victorous" in return.

In other words, you both have the right to make yourselves look like
laughable self-righteous sanctimonious twits, and you both are certainly
doing a superb job of that.

All the high-sounding babble about usenet attribution rules is exactly
that..... babble.

Attribute that.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

[Kim W5TIT]

"KØHB" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote
>
> > No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you
have
> > made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by
me--and
> > was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just
as
> > every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you
think
> > you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign.
> > Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join,
> yet
> > you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than
anyone
> > else.
> >
> > You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur radio
> > operators in a list where you treated them differently (by listing them
> with
> > a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of my callsign, me
from
> > being viewed as an amateur radio among other amateur radio operators in
a
> > list in which such omission could easily be taken out of context, I
might
> > add.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really
do
> > have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you
should
> > have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list. But, my
> greater
> > purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated feeling I used to
have
> > when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get out of. Maybe you don't
> feel
> > boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly
insulted--at
> > least it looked that way to me in this post!
>
>
>
> Kim ---> Jim has every right to not include your callsign in his messages.
>
> Jim ---> Kim has every right to feel whatever she feels about that, and to
> post messages which make her "feel victorous" in return.
>
> In other words, you both have the right to make yourselves look like
> laughable self-righteous sanctimonious twits, and you both are certainly
> doing a superb job of that.
>

Oh, wait. Oh, never mind. I thought I was seeing Hans with something other
than a gorilla thumping message. My mistake.

>
> All the high-sounding babble about usenet attribution rules is exactly
> that..... babble.
>
> Attribute that.
>

At least we can.

>
> With all kind wishes,
>
> de Hans, K0HB
>

Kim W5TIT

[Dwight Stewart]

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
> "Dwight Stewart" wrote:
> >
> > Negative comments had already
> > been posted by others. I don't kick
> > people when they're already laying
> > on the ground from the blows of
> > others.
>
>
> DWIGHT!? (Grin) Puhleeze don't
> ever think I am "laying on the ground"
> or even feel kicked! LOL!!


Metaphorically speaking, Kim.


> OH--are you going to get all upset
> because I snipped the rest of the
> original exchange below this point?


How dare you. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

[Mike Coslo]

Dee D. Flint wrote:
> "Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>Kim W5TIT wrote:
>>
>>>At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as
>
> everyone
>
>>>thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...
>>
>>"And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
>>made well.
>>
>>- Mike KB3EIA -
>>
>
>
> Mike, as I replied to Kim's post, I noticed it but chose to stay out of the
> fight that I knew was almost certain to come.

And a good idea that is!

[Mike Coslo]

KØHB wrote:

>
> All the high-sounding babble about usenet attribution rules is exactly
> that..... babble.


Just like all the high and mighty amateurs that seem to think it's a
good idea to follow the rules while on the air.

If ya breaks the usenet rulez, you getz flamed.

Mike KB3EIA -

[Alun]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in
:

> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Leo
>> > writes:
>>
>> >Jim,
>> >
>> >Reply follows:
>> >
>> >On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article >, Leo
>> > writes:
>> >>
>> >>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>In article >, "Kim" writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected
>> >>>>that's your perception, not my intent.
>> >>>
>> >>>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse
>> >>>to acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a
>> >>>public forum.
>> >>
>> >>I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>> >
>> >Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.
>>
>> Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
>> names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my rights
>> were violated.
>> >>
>> >>>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as well!
>> >>
>> >>I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?
>> >
>> >See above.
>> >>
>> >>>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own personal
>> >>>morals and prejudices upon others?
>> >>
>> >>Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the
>> >>same to me.
>> >>
>> >>Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my
>> >>posts?
>> >
>> >Of course not -
>>
>> But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if
>> I write a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're
>> saying I do *not* have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".
>>
>> oh wait - I just did....
>>
>
> GASP! Is that sarcasm from you, Jim?! No way!
>
>> >
>> >but that does not confer upon you the right to remove or alter her
>> >personal data without her permission!
>>
>> "personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her
>> callsign. In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been
>> only one Kim. There have been at least 4 Jims, though.
>> .
>
> (original attributed "period" left above). And, Jim, by the same token
> "everyone here" (a very general statement I might add--coming from you)
> knows you disagree with my callsign and "everyone here" knows that you
> have generally refrained from repeating it in a post. "Everyone here"
> knows that. But "no one there" may know that when the post is
> encountered through a search, casual observation, new folks, whatever.
>
>> > <---- these two attributes inserted to "lock in" the attribution (I
>> > do that all the time, nearly every post)
>> >For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....
>>
>> For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having
>> to write
>>
>> certain things.
>>
>> >>>Did anyone here ask you
>> >>>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
>> >>>offensive? Certainly not.
>> >>
>> >>I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone
>> >>else can post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I
>> >>have to repeat it.
>> >
>> >>What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't
>> >>it?
>> >
>> >Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
>> >callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".
>>
>> That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote.
>> No one who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.
>>
>
> My perception says you *did* change the meaning of something I
> submitted (i.e., wrote). I intend for anyone, *anyone* looking at that
> list to see the same, the *exact same* thing in each and everyone's
> submission. No else had to ask you to include their callsign: you made
> the conscious decision to "just" insert everyone's callsign--*but
> mine.* Therefore, there is an implied "difference" to a casual
> observer. I do not wish my submission to be any different from anyone
> else's, as the difference could mean to be taken as negative or
> positive--and whatever impression it makes is not important to me. I
> don't want there to *be any difference* between my submission, oh: *as
> an amateur radio operator*, as any other amateur radio operator.
>
> If Len Anderson, for example, submitted his prediction of a date that
> CW testing will be removed from the amateur licensing process, a) would
> you insert his submission, b) don't you find his whole general nature
> abhorrent and would you insert his submission anyway and, c) would you
> insert his first and last name, just first name, etc?
>
>> ><--- these attributes inserted
>> >If you aren't
>> >comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
>> >someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?
>>
>> Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
>> derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
>> in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.
>>
>
> You cannot, on one hand, state that my callsign is a bad thing for the
> ARS--and you did state that--then, on the other hand, state that you
> have no prejudice. You *do* have prejudice and you demonstrate it
> every time you delete my callsign from a post. I've never (ahem,
> never) noticed if you keep my "signature" to my posts when you are
> replying to them, Jim. Do you? Or is my callsign just as offensive
> then as when I *intend* to include myself as an amateur radio in a list
> you have *generally* invited people to join? You have never stated
> "any offensive callsigns will not be listed." You have never stated,
> "Kim, I will include you in the list if you wish, but I will not
> include your callsign." You've actually never stated anything as to
> why you were refraining from submitting my prediction with my callsign
> *ATTRIBUTED* to it. You deliberately change the intention of my
> message by leaving my callsign out. *You*, Jim, did the *FIRST*
> deleting of attributions and, I might add, you have continued to do it
> for--what--over a year, about a year, somewhere around there.
>
>> ><---these attributes inserted
>> > Wouldn't
>> >that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
>> >with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!
>>
>> There's nothing illegal about it.
>>
>> >>Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote
>> >>the original list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or
>> >>even *should* not do the list a certain way, it's *they* who are
>> >>trying to censor *me*.
>> >>
>> >>If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included,
>> >>that's their right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote
>> >>something I did not.
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> Where?
>>
>> >>>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the
>> >>>>>attributes of the original message simply to include my callsign
>> >>>>>in the list.
>>
>> >>>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
>> >>>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!
>>
>> >>So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
>> >
>> >Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
>> >Hers, and yours.
>>
>> I do not see that I have done anything wrong.
>>
>
> Of course not. You probably *don't* have any prejudice where your own
> decsions and actions have been made. But, by my perception, you are
> *JUST AS WRONG* to take away--or leave out--*ATTRIBUTION TO MY
> CALLSIGN* as I am to take away--or leave out--attribution characters in
> an newsgroup post. I daresay, though, your deletion is far more
> offensive than mine. The basis, meaning, and original message and
> intent of that message was in no way harmed or changed when I added my
> callsign to the list. None. Except, perhaps, that it then could have
> looked like you had (God forbid) typed my callsign.
>
> Your deletion--or leaving out, in this case--deliberately makes it look
> like I have no callsign.
>
>> >>>><---these attributes inserted
>> >>>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing
>> >>>>the > symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not
>> >>>>write. I chalked that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.
>>
>> >>>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
>> >>>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>>
>> >>Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was
>> >>their right to do it?
>> >
>> >No - but that isn't the issue here.
>>
>
> I agree. That isn't the issue for me, either. I think the real issue
> is exhibiting a form of respect for another individual who has earned
> the right to have a callsign attributed to her--*WHETHER OR NOT* you
> agree with the callsign. The one thing that Larry Roll has never, ever
> done--to his credit arrrghhhh, yes I said that--is "strip" me of my
> callsign. You have, Jim, and your actions are wrong. They are not
> only wrong, they are meanspirited and, to me, hateful.
>
>> <---this attribute inserted
>> Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
>> telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
>> personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
>> what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
>> and judgements.
>>
>> >Your obvious discomfort with her
>> >call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
>> >You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
>> >consider it improper.
>>
>> Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?
>>
>
> No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you
> have made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by
> me--and was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be
> listed *just as every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*,
> Jim--whether you think you do or not--have the right to *disascociated*
> me from my callsign. Period. But, especially in a list where you've
> invited people to join, yet you did not say anyone would be listed in
> any way differently than anyone else.
>
>> <---this attribute inserted
>> Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
>> though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
>> it angers others.
>>
>> She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
>> to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
>> <---this attribute inserted
>
> You do not have the right to list me "differently" than any other
> amateur radio operator. You have the right to refrain from having my
> callsign in a post, I could agree on that. But NOT a list.
>
>> >
>> >>>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other
>> >>>>>person has a problem with that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone
>> >>>>respect your desire to have your callsign included? You want
>> >>>>respect that you do not give others.
>> >>>
>> >>>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?
>> >>
>> >>Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of
>> >>my posts. I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".
>> >
>> >Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
>> >aren't you?
>>
>> Nope. I'm editing it out.
>>
>
> Worse. To censor would be to refrain from REPOSTING any submissions
> wherein I had added my prediction. That would have been far more
> respectable. My response would have been to ask you why you were not
> including me; you would have explained, and I would have
> respected--fully--your decision to act on a belief you have in a
> respectable manner. I do not respect your deliberate act to deny me
> listed as an amateur radio operator in a list of other amateur radio
> operators.
>
>>
>> "Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all.
>> I have not done that, and would not if I could.
>>
>> >Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by her fellow
>> >amateurs by this call is appropriate behaviour?
>>
>> I think that not giving her callsign more exposure through my own
>> posts is appropriate behavior.
>>
>
> Then, you would not be able to respond to any of my *OTHER POSTS*, Jim.
> Because each time you respond to a post from and *do not* remove my
> callsign from my original post, then you are "proliferating" my
> callsign--even more so, I might add, than when it would be in this
> thread, probably. This thread has only been this active because of
> this debate that is going on. I haven't checked, but do you deleted my
> callsign from replies to posts from me? You'd be leaving behind my
> name so people would still know someone named Kim has originally
> submitted the post. At any rate, deleting my callsign from a post
> would follow along with your reasoning above; that to do so would
> minimize the exposure to my callsign. And, I daresay, that to
> completely follow along with that reasoning and have it be valid and
> accepted as true and logical reasoning, then you would need to refrain
> from *any* post wherein my callsign is evidenced.
>
>> ><---these attributes inserted
>> >Because you have some bugaboo about the suffix?
>>
>> Because I think it's inappropriate and because I take responsibility
>> for what I post.
>> >
>> >>Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as
>> >>"wrong" is really a way of someone imposing their own personal
>> >>morals and prejudices upon me.
>>
>> Ahem...
>> >>
>> >>>That doesn't sound like
>> >>>you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does
>> >>>not follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either.
>> >>
>> >>I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is
>> >>inappropriate for the ARS.
>> >
>> >That isn't up to you to decide, Jim. That is the role of the FCC.
>>
>> Says who?
>> <---this attribute inserted
>
> Well, I think Leo just said it. And, I agree.
>
>>
>> FCC is allowing BPL systems to be implemented even though they
>> generate enormous amounts of RF interference. FCC still requires code
>> tests of those who want US HF ham licenses, despite the loss of the
>> treaty requirement 6 months ago. FCC recently declined to penalize
>> anyone when a pop star used the "F-word" on network TV.
>>
>> Does the fact that the FCC does the above mean I have no right to say
>> the FCC is wrong?
>>
>
> You did not say that the FCC is wrong for issuing my callsign. You
> said my callsign is inappropriate for the ARS. It may be (and I
> wholeheartedly disagree with you), but it is not for you--as an
> individual and certainly as an amateur radio operator--to disassociate
> me from ham radio as an amateur radio operator by leaving off my
> callsign from something in which I have *intended* for it to be.
>
>> <---this attribute inserted
>> Is it wrong for me to tell people not to sign up for BPL and cite the
>> problems it has?
>>
>
> No. Not wrong at all. But, it would be wrong of you to delete a
> "name" someone goes by from a list of names in which people might be
> expressing their agreement or disagreement, simply because you disagree
> with the way it sounds or even that it might be risque. It would
> incorrect of you to delete or refuse to attribute their name to them
> for any reason.
>
>> <---this attribute inserted
>> Is it wrong for those who disagree with code tests to try to get the
>> rules changed?
>>
>
> Not at all. And, I'd imagine that those who are so driven, are
> actively involved by contacting the appropriate agencies and
> departments and by active debate to state their cause and purpose.
> However, again, it would be incorrect for someone to keep a name or
> callsign (in this case) from a list in which they intended their name
> or callsign to appear.
>
>> <---this attribute inserted
>> Is it OK for hams to use the F-word on the air because FCC allowed it
>> once on TV?
>>
>
> I could drone on, but hopefully the point has been made.
>
>> >
>> >> She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls
>> >>sequentially. It
>> >>was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to
>> >>extinction" that exceeded 3000 posts.
>> >
>> >But it is her call - issued to her for her use.
>>
>> And she hasn't used it for over a year on the air. Just here.
>>
>
> If I *had* used it regularly, once in a while, or every so often, on
> the air, would that have changed anything here? I think not, so don't
> bother using it. Regardless, it is my callsign and I thought it would
> be listed when I originally submitted my prediction.
>
>> <---this attribute inserted
>> And if Kim wants to use it here, that's her right. But *I* don't have
>> to use it here.
>> >>
>
> Nope. You sure don't. But, it would be nice in the future if you
> caution that any amatuer radio operator, with whose callsign you
> disagree, who submits something with the idea that he/she will be
> listed just as everyone else, *will not* be treated in such a manner.
>
>> >>>>><---these attributes inserted
>> >>>>>I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction
>> >>>>>from the list.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Done. No problem.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in
>> >>>>>every way but license class to any other amateur, then I
>> >>>>>deliberately, with no malice, and respectfully abstain from
>> >>>>>regarding *him* at all.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim.
>> >>>>But I do not post your callsign because I think you made an
>> >>>>inappropriate choice.
>> >>>
>> >>>That is not up to you to decide, Jim.
>> >>
>> >>Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain
>> >>callsigns are not appropriate?
>> >
>> >Of course it is.
>> >>
>> >>Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post?
>> >
>> >Nope - but the gentlemanly thing to do would be to omit all of the
>> >callsigns, not just hers.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> For the reasons stated by me in this post, for many.
>
>> ><---these attributes inserted
>> >Do you not think that singling her out the way that you did was
>> >disrespectful to her?
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> I do. And, it is my perception that counts--although it's quite
> obvious that others have at least some degree of concern in this area
> as well.
>
>> ><---these attributes inserted
>> >Are you that sanctimonious?
>>
>> No. I'm that honest.
>> >
>> >>ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with
>> >>four-letter suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities.
>> >
>> >Do you believe that the various administrations would issue just any
>> >old four letter combination?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> I do not.
>
>> ><---these attributes inserted
>> >I'd be surprised!
>>
>> I was surprised that they would issue Kim's call. But they did. Why
>> would you be surprised if they
>> issued four-letter combinations? They allowed that pop star to say a
>> certain word. All kinds of
>> words are permitted here on the 'net - (wire comms are regulated by
>> the FCC too).
>>
>
> Why is my callsign such a shock? Forget any reason that someone might
> request it. I say that becasue, keep in mind that Michael (I think his
> name was) requested and had K2TIT because it was the closest he could
> come to commemorating the Tet Offensive. So, regardless of *why*
> someone might request it, why the shock that the FCC would issue it?
> The mere word "tit" or even the tit itself is not vulgar. Good
> heavens, if you think it is then I am the one who is shocked! The word
> is not intended to be used as a nickname on the amateur bands; Indeed,
> I have sharply offended people who have done that. The full callsign
> is all that is ever responded to, on the air anyway.
>
> And, mainly, and the thing *everyone* always likes to ignore is that,
> yes, the callsign was requested by me on a dare. HOWEVER, it was a
> dare *after* I made the verbal observation that if I were to ever
> request a *VANITY* callsign, it would certainly be associated with
> something of vanity--not simply my initials. As you will recall, the
> most important part of that story--and it is a true one--is that a) I
> had never desired to get a vanity call, b) was mentioning to my fellow
> hams [men] on the air that it was a pity they had no more creativity
> than to simply request their initials and, c) that if I were to request
> a callsign it would be related to my "vanity." Anyone who knew me (and
> the all did) personally knew exactly what I was inferring by that
> comment. Were I as famous as Dolly Parton, it would be for the same
> reason she is--minus that I am a performer (I am not). My unique
> callsign is unique because it is a woman's callsign who knows that
> others perceive first in me, my tits. My intellect, beauty, wit,
> charm, rogue behavior, honesty in dealing with all humas and nature,
> and very, very opinionated nature all come secondary to the fact that,
> on initial gaze, I am a large titted woman. And, my callsign uniquely
> says, "get the hell over it, there's a person here to be reckoned
> with." If anyone does not like the way I *like* and *prefer* to relay
> that message, then tough titties (and they are not).
>
> If anyone else (and here's your argument coming back on ya) *perceives*
> my callsign to be vulgar, that is *their* perception. It is not my
> intention. If anyone else becomes deragotory with my callsign, as
> Larry, Dick, Dave, Waddles/ULX, and others have done in this newsgroup;
> I daresay your problem is with them for they are the ones acting in a
> vulgar nature.
>
>> ><---these attributes inserted
>> >Even the vehicle
>> >license plate guys have a handle on that one.....
>>
>> Those are issued by the states, not the FCC.
>> >>
>> >>>The FCC could have refused to
>> >>>issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like
>> >>>the motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for
>> >>>one) freely issue this suffix as well!
>> >>
>> >>FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the
>> >>database, or better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the
>> >>suffixes immediately before and after are much more common.
>> >
>> >Does not prove the point.
>> >
>> It proves the FCC considers Kim's call to be somewhat different from
>> W5TIS or W5TIU
>>
>
> Or, K2TIT
>
>> >>><---these attributes inserted
>> >>>
>> >>>>But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each
>> >>>>of us is better at somethings than others. I'm sure there are
>> >>>>things involving amateur radio that you're better at than me, and
>> >>>>there are probably things involving amateur radio that I'm better
>> >>>>at than you. So we are not equal in every way but license class.
>> >>>
>> >>>Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was
>> >>>referring to.
>> >>
>> >>No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it.
>> >
>> >I suspect not - you are obviously much more savvy than that!
>>
>> Is Kim equal to me in technical knowledge of ham radio? In historic
>> knowledge? In HF operating experience? In ability to homebrew
>> equipment? At the risk of blowing my own horn, I'd say no.
>> >>
>> >>>As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued
>> >>>vanity callsign, just like you!
>> >>
>> >>Of course! And she does use it here.
>> >>
>> >>But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not
>> >>have the right to refrain from doing so?
>> >
>> >You may, of course, refrain from using it.
>>
>> Gee, thanks. ;-)
>>
>
> But, you do not have the right to deliberately disassociate my callsign
> from me in a situation where I am representing myself as a ham radio
> operator among other ham radio operators with like actions. We are all
> participating in the same poll, "The Pool." We are all submitting our
> ideas, and every amateur radio operator--but me--has had their
> submission listed with association to their callsign.
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >But why do you feel that
>> >you have the right to share your own personal views on why you have
>> >an issue with it with the rest of the group?
>>
>> Because they asked.
>> >
>> >And, do you belive that censorship is appropriate?
>>
>> No - that's why I don't censor anyone.
>>
>
> Sometimes, censorship is quite appropriate. I think censorship of my
> submission would have been more appropriate, and respectful, than to
> add my "name" to the list with a submission of other amateur radio
> operators where their callsigns are listed.
>
>> >>
>> >>>(and, up here,
>> >>
>> >>(several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's)
>> >
>> >...'censored', as it were, for some inane reason - those are valid VE
>> >call signs!
>>
>> Doesn't mean they are appropropriate.
>>
>> >>Not the breast - er, best way to treat these hams.....
>> >>
>> >>>all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male).
>> >>>
>> >>Were those calls sequentially issued?
>> >
>> >You may want to take that up with Rene, Neil and Shanta - whether
>> >they requested them or not I'm sure I don't know. Or care.
>>
>> It makes a difference.
>> <---attribute inserted
>
> To *you*, Jim and some others. Not to me, not Leo, not to some others.
> That someone gets, or even requests--doesn't matter--a callsign, it
> behooves you as a fellow amateur to respect that person as an amateur
> radio operator unless and until the licensing agency decides they
> cannot be an amateur radio operator any more. Note I did not say you
> have to respect that person as a person. I have absolutely no respect
> in any way for Larry Roll, Dave Heil, Waddles/ULX, and quite a few
> others actually. In fact I regard them with pure disdain. However,
> they are amateur radio operators and no one outside the FCC as the
> granting authority, can take that away from them. And, as fellow
> amateur radio operators, they deserve my respect. *If* (and that is a
> big if) I ever had to encounter them on the air, I would regard them
> and treat them with the same respect that I have for every other
> amateur radio operator.
>
> Even here in this area, when we had two proven fake Navy SEAL amateurs
> (proven by the organization that investigates that kind of stuff), and
> I was the only one who took them on as idiots, I never disrespected
> them on the air with rude remarks or insulting behavior. They would
> come on the air and call me names, try to scare me, deliberately
> violate nearly every R&R there is regarding transmission, but I never
> did the same to them. I refrained from communicating with them and
> would not respond to their childish, impish behavior. One day, the
> last transmission ever made on the air to either of them, I reminded
> one that the frequency was mine--which is proper operating practice and
> still gives them the *appearance* of respect as an amateur.
>
>> >>
>> >>>>I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that
>> >>>>your choice of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate
>> >>>>to the amateur radio service. You *chose* that callsign, and the
>> >>>>FCC would not have issued it sequentially.
>> >>>
>> >>>Why not?
>> >>
>> >>Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns.
>> >>FCC will, however, issue them if requested through the vanity
>> >>program.
>> >
>> >Why, if they are indeed "inappropriate to the ARS", would they do
>> >that?
>>
>> -Because they don't care
>> -Because it's handled by computer and nobody really looks at the
>> system -Because they don't want the complaints from those who want
>> such calls -Because FCC is too busy with other matters and has too few
>> resources.
>>
>
> I feel it is becuase there may be a thought in their mind that someone
> might be embarrassed to have a callsign like that--and that is very
> nice of them to carry out issuing the call as one that might cause
> embarrassment to someone. They do care. Even though callsigns are
> issued by computer, it's obvious someone looks at them, because there
> are some set aside, as you say. I think the callsigns like mine are
> simply set aside to be requested, rather than sequentially issued,
> because they may cause embarrassment to someone--or maybe would even
> cause embarrassment to the FCC if someone asked, "why in the world
> would you have given me such a call?"
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >They have total authority over those calls - surely they ccontrol
>> >them better than that?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> In case you didn't know, Kim emailed Riley Hollingsworth about it. He
>> replied that while such callsigns were legal, the request and use of
>> such callsigns moves the ARS "one step closer to extinction".
>>
>
> No, his very general statement--in specific reference to activities on
> the air, I might add--about my callsign and other behaviors in the ARS
> (related, as I said, to on the air activities) could move the ARS one
> step closer to extinction. I happen to totally disagree with him.
> There is something about Riley that Larry doesn't understand, by the
> way, Riley offered his comments *as a person* not as an authority of
> the FCC. Big difference. The FCC officially has no remark on my
> callsign other than, when asked, to state that they do not legislate or
> regulate callsigns (something to that affect anyway--it was a long time
> ago that we had communication together).
>
> It's also quite obvious that Riley is wrong. The ARS is still around,
> sitll healthy, and has even *gained* respect of important groups and
> agencies as a viable organization of people ready and capable to serve,
> if called upon to do so. The ARS is just fine and my callsign, nor the
> behaviors of idiots on the air, are moving it closer to extinction.
> There is not even a first step toward extinction of the ARS.
>
>> >>><---attributes inserted
>> >>>It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list
>> >>>it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC
>> >>>statement to the contrary.
>> >>
>> >>I refer you to the Callbook and databases.
>> >
>> >Not proof - is there a specific FCC document that lists certain calls
>> >exempt from sequential issue?
>>
>> Their actions are enough to prove the point.
>> >>
>> >>>In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass
>> >>>your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's
>> >>>fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas.
>> >>
>> >>In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such
>> >>an opinion?
>> >
>> >Of course you do. The issue is, do you have the right to impose your
>> >views and mores upon others. I do not believe that you do.
>>
>> You're saying I don't have the right to protest. Just keep quiet, huh?
>>
>
> Why protest in an arena where the protest goes inactionable? Your
> protest to me will have no effect, whatsoever, in having me change my
> callsign. Even your refusal to list my callsign as an amateur radio
> operator with a submission, among other amateur radio operators with a
> submission, will have no positive effect on me changing my callsign.
>
> You should simply stick to the argument that you find my callsign
> inappropriate. That is the strongest (even at its weakest) argument
> you can offer. To try and submit your actions as a demonstrable
> protest falls way short. At least in my opinion.
>
>> >>
>> >>>>The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to
>> >>>>do, or in the best interests of all concerned.
>> >>>
>> >>>Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is
>> >>>in the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one
>> >>>would prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable
>> >>>and unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone
>> >>>else here!
>> >>
>> >>Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not
>> >>be done by othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they
>> >>are deciding what is "right" and "wrong" for more than themselves.
>> >>It's an unavoidable consequence of having an opinion. The only other
>> >>option is to never express any opinions at all.
>> >>
>> >>For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur
>> >>license should be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on
>> >>the issue should take precedence over what others think and want.
>> >>They're saying that the FCC's current rules are incorrect and need
>> >>to change.
>> >>
>> >>And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for
>> >>the code test to go away. Do they have the right to say those
>> >>things, and to try to get their
>> >>will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and
>> >>those who disagree have rights, too.
>>
>> And that's the way it should be. YMMV
>> >>
>> >>>I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your
>> >>>own value system to overrule something which is permitted by law.
>> >>
>> >>See above about the tests.
>> >
>> >??
>> >
>> >Sorry, Jim, I fail to see the connection between snubbing Kim
>> >publically and whether Morse testing should be continued. I'll read
>> >this over again a couple of Jack Daniels' from now, and see if it's
>> >clearer then! :)
>> >>
>> >>What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I
>> >>*must not* oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are
>> >>permitted by law.
>> >>
>> >>Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Of course you are. But, as stated above, do you have the right to
>> >impose your own personal standards upon others? Is it OK to single
>> >out Kim in your list as the only one represented by name only in your
>> >pool, because you are embarassed by her call? No. Of course not.
>> >There are two gentlemanly things that you could do in this situation:
>> >
>> >1. List all of the participants in the pool by name only, creating an
>> >equal playing field and singling out no one.
>> >
>
> Absolutely. I agree. Or, state that any amateur's callsign deemed as
> inappropriate by you will not be listed in your poll.
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >2. End your participation in the pool on moral grounds, and let
>> >someone else pick it up should they so choose.
>>
>> By stating those two as the onlt two options, *you* are trying to
>> impose *your* personal standards on *me*
>>
>> I say there's a third option:
>>
>> 3. Do exactly what I've done, and state the reasons for doing so.
>>
>
> Which falls short of reasonable in any way.
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >It is never right to ostracize another person because you don't like,
>> >or cannot deal, with something about them.
>>
>> I have not ostracized Kim.
>>
>
> You have ostracized me as a valid amateur radio operator by refusing to
> include my callsign with my submission. You have ostracized me by
> treating my submission as an amateur radio operator differently than
> you treated a submission by any other amateur radio operator.
>
> You have participated in ostracization (is that a word?) :)
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >What effect to you think that doing this would have on Kim?
>>
>> Perhaps it will make her reconsider her choice of callsign.
>>
>
> Oh, Jim. Puhleeze! Surely, surely you know way better than that!!!
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >Do you not see that your choice of actions would hurt her feelings?
>>
>> What about *my* feelings?
>>
>
> My feelings are not hurt, by the way. I could actually care less about
> the issue of whether my callsign is on the list or not. However, the
> reason *I* am persuing this as a topic of interest will be revealed at
> the end of this post. <snicker> Not to minimize the input of my
> ideas: I am representing exacly how I think about the issue! I am just
> not hurt at all by the exclusion of my callsign from the list.
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >Say, you weren't striking out at her because she offended you, were
>> >you? Of course not!
>>
>> That's right.
>> >
>> >>>If Kim's
>> >>>callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts
>> >>>entirely.
>> >>
>> >>Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree
>> >>with her about callsign choice.
>> >
>
> Thank you. And, I don't think you're a bad person, either; nor are you
> my enemy.
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >Well, your actions certainly tell a different story, Jim. I treat my
>> >friends a heck of a lot better than that!
>>
>> I did not say she was my friend. Kim reserves the term "friend" to a
>> very select few.
>> "Acquaintance" would be more accurate.
>> >>
>
> Exactly. Very few people are those whom I would consider "friends."
> Certainly not someone I only have interaction with over the computer or
> even amateur radio.
>
>> >><---attributes inserted
>> >>What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by
>> >>determining how I can post here.
>> >
>> >Not at all, Jim - just pointing out that you don't have the right to
>> >impose your beliefs and value systems upon others.
>>
>> Not what I'm doing.
>> >>
>> >>>On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to
>> >>>someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have
>> >>>the killfile for this purpose. Not censorship!
>> >>
>> >>Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone
>> >>from posting anyhting?
>> >
>
> You have prevented my callsign being associated with other amateur
> radio operators in a list where you treated them differently (by
> listing them with a callsign). You have prevented, by mere omission of
> my callsign, me from being viewed as an amateur radio among other
> amateur radio operators in a list in which such omission could easily
> be taken out of context, I might add.
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >Come on, Jim, you know very well at this point in the discussion what
>> >you did!
>>
>> I edited. Not the same thing. Words have exact meanings.
>> >>
>> >>> Intentional deletion of
>> >>>her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as
>> >>>a reader of this group or a fellow ham to do.
>> >>
>> >>I disagree.
>> >
>> >Sorry to hear that!
>> >>
>> >>Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS.
>> >>IMHO YMMV
>> >
>> >And that is your opinion. I can make up my own mind, thanks, and
>> >really don't need your help by filtering out things you have a
>> >problem with.
>>
>> So go ahead and use Kim's call all you want. Just please don't tell me
>> that I have to.
>> >>>
>> >>>Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks
>> >>>running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called
>> >>>'access covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male
>> >>>bias').
>> >>
>> >>I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on
>> >>Usenet as a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I
>> >>*must* post in a certain way. Why?
>> >
>> >Please see the above comments.
>> >>>
>> >>>I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything
>> >>>related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word
>> >>
>> >>[slang word deleted]
>> >
>> >...because you personally have an issue with it! See?
>> >>
>> >>Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's not a
>> >>birdwatcher.
>> >
>> >I don't know that for sure, Jim - it wasn't on her QRZ profile, but
>> >she just might be!
>>
>> Kim chose that callsign for at least two obvious, prominent reasons:
>>
>> 1) She thought it was fun, and/or funny
>>
>> 2) She knew it would get lots of attention and create all sorts of
>> reactions
>>
>
> Oh, I thought you were going to say that my two, obvious, prominent
> reasons were my tits. Because those were the two obvious, prominent
> reasons =:o
>
>> <---attribute inserted
>> She's told us all that here. Her picture used to be on qrz, too.
>>
>
> Uh, what does a picture of me, driving a car, from the shoulder area
> up, have to do with my tits? Don't tell me you could "tell" by that
> picture that I had big tits! Oh, no! It's worse than I thought! ; )
>
> That'd be about like Larry being able to tell I'm fat (which I'm not)
> just by looking at that picture!
>
>> >>><---attributes inserted
>> >>>Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore.
>> >>
>> >>I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone.
>> >
>> >Yes you did!
>>
>> No, I did not.
>>
>> > Kim, I believe....
>> >>>
>> I notice that you use her name and not her callsign too....
>>
>> >>>Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur
>> >>>radio - as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for
>> >>>example.
>> >>
>> >>This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have
>> >>refused to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of
>> >>insulting names -
>
> Then your issue is with them.
>
>> >><---attributes inserted
>> >>and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being
>> >>disrespectful.
>> >
>> >And this makes your behaviour correct and justifiable how?
>>
>> There was no problem when others did it. Only when I did. Double
>> standard.
>>
>> >>>Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just
>> >>>typing it, I'm sure I don't know.
>> >>
>> >>I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to.
>> >
>
> That's a good "Kim" response! <GRIN>
>
>> ><---attributes inserted
>> >Rather childish, isn't it? It's a callsign!
>>
>> Then why not choose another one?
>> <---attributes inserted
>
> Oh goodness!!! My callsign is so uniquely me how could I ever do that?
>
>> >>
>> >>>Whatever it it, I hope you are able
>> >>>to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call,
>> >>>and you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period.
>> >>>
>> >>I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right
>> >>to force *me* to use it here on Usenet.
>> >>
>
> However, you did not let anyone know, up front when the poll was first
> issued, that any inappropriateness would be looked for and dealt with
> accordingly. I submitted a prediction and do have the right and, feel
> correctly, expectation that my prediction would be listed just like
> every other amateur radio operator's.
>
> My behavior on this newsgroup has always been blunt and honest. You
> could have even publicly said something to me about my callsign not be
> included and, as I would expect from you, asking if I would like not to
> particpate. That would have been so Jim/N2EY that I believe I have come
> to know. But, for some reason, your exhibited nature was not
> forthcoming here, and I don't know why--may not even be anything to it.
> But, I can see you posting a reply to my prediction that you would not
> be including my callsign--and would I like to withdraw.
>
>> >><---attributes inserted
>> >>Or do they?
>> >
>> >Nope - but it's not OK to force your values on others!
>>
>> But you want to force your values on me.
>> >>
>> >>Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found
>> >>inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone
>> >>*must* include that word or phrase in any replies?
>> >
>> >Me - I'd ignore it! Not worth getting bent out of shape over....
>>
>> I do ignore it! That's exactly what I've been doing!
>>
>> Thanks for the validation, Leo!
>> >
>> >Gotta go - we're having baked chicken frontal sections for dinner,
>> >and they're my favourite! :)
>> >
>> Yum..But I'm a leg man, myself.
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>
> Now, for the real reason I decided to engage as I have the last couple
> of weeks. Remember, Jim, how I used to get so insulted when you would
> seem to "lead" someone into a corner they could not get out of? Well,
> this thread, and the lack of your treating my submission as any other
> amateur radio operator's became my path to doing the same thing to you.
> Not out of meanness, mind you, not at all. Out of pure fun.
>
> I feel you do lead, by way of artful argument by the way, people into
> corners they don't think they can get out of. This was my answer to
> that--because I really do feel I waited long enough (practically a
> year), acted often enough (giving you every opportunity to act as I
> would have thought you would act, and participated strictly as a
> submitter (I engaged in no comments until recently, and those only to
> request that you include my submission with my callsign). It is even
> uncharacteristic of me to get involved to this level (being listed
> among the debaters over the CW testing issue) with this topic.
>
> As I said, I would have thought of your nature that you would see my
> submission, and let me know that you would list it but without my
> callsign, and give me the opportunity to withdraw inclusion. Does
> anyone else agree that this would have been something one could
> reasonably have expected from Jim?
>
> Anyway, I feel victorious, but maybe it's just me. As I said, I really
> do have the opinions stated in this response and really do believe you
> should have offered anything but leaving my callsign off the list.
> But, my greater purpose was to leave you with that same, frustrated
> feeling I used to have when you'd box me into a corner I couldn't get
> out of. Maybe you don't feel boxed...but you sure were getting
> defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at least it looked that way to me
> in this post!
>
> Kim W5TIT!!!!!!!
>
>
>

Bingo! Jim is very skilled at debating, but this time he has outsmarted
himself.

Alun N3KIP

[Len Over 21]

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Leo
>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Jim,
>> >
>> >Reply follows:
>> >
>> >On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article >, Leo
>> >
>> >>writes:
>> >>
>> >>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>In article >, "Kim"
>> >>>>writes:

<snip>

>If Len Anderson, for example, submitted his prediction of a date that CW
>testing will be removed from the amateur licensing process, a) would you
>insert his submission, b) don't you find his whole general nature abhorrent
>and would you insert his submission anyway and, c) would you insert his
>first and last name, just first name, etc?

Actually, none of the above. :-)

Had I made any prediction (I didn't), such would be swallowed up
by a great deal of supurfluous, gratuitous misdirection by at
least two others. One would be a lot of pejorative perforations of
his own ulcer by the resident gunny-sack sergeant. The other
would be Herr Robust scowling squintily through his monocle and
babbling about "interest" and "no experience." :-)

The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim would have gone off
on a tangent, hyperbole at the ready, and consigning me to the
"in error" category somehow. It would stuff his sinusoids to his
adenoids.


>You cannot, on one hand, state that my callsign is a bad thing for the
>ARS--and you did state that--then, on the other hand, state that you have no
>prejudice. You *do* have prejudice and you demonstrate it every time you
>delete my callsign from a post. I've never (ahem, never) noticed if you
>keep my "signature" to my posts when you are replying to them, Jim. Do you?

Note: The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim sometimes
OMITS a "signature" on his own postings! [as Google is my witness
that is true!] Why a "signature" is needed on an all-typed-in post
is a mystery to me...the message header has all the information
already. :-)

Kim, as far as I'm concerned and as far as the LAW is concerned,
if you have a valid US amateur radio license with a specific callsign,
that's all that matters.

But, there's all these prissy, pompous hypocrites in here, all claiming
the Last Word and trying to act like a raddio version of Judge Roy
Bean.

The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim will never apologize.
He OWNS this newsgroup by squatter's rights. That alone gives
him some kind of immaculate right...right as in righteousness.

<more snipping...>


>> Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?
>
>No. You don't. Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have
>made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and
>was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as
>every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think
>you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign.
>Period. But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join, yet
>you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone
>else.

He feels an eminent right to do whatever. Noblesse oblige or something
like that...the "divine right of kings." :-)


>You did not say that the FCC is wrong for issuing my callsign. You said my
>callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.

He KNOWS what is "right." He IS the ARS. :-)


>Not at all. And, I'd imagine that those who are so driven, are actively
>involved by contacting the appropriate agencies and departments and by
>active debate to state their cause and purpose. However, again, it would be
>incorrect for someone to keep a name or callsign (in this case) from a list
>in which they intended their name or callsign to appear.

They are "driven" by a terrible need to Win A Newsgroup Argument!

Nothing else matters. All who do not agree with them are "faulty,"
"in error," etc., etc.

<snip>

>If anyone else (and here's your argument coming back on ya) *perceives* my
>callsign to be vulgar, that is *their* perception. It is not my intention.
>If anyone else becomes deragotory with my callsign, as Larry, Dick, Dave,
>Waddles/ULX, and others have done in this newsgroup; I daresay your problem
>is with them for they are the ones acting in a vulgar nature.

They are:
1. In the right because they are olde-tyme morsemen.
2. They are misogynists and haven't gotten laid recently.
3. They can't "lose face" by admitting defeat in a newsgroup argument.
4. All of the above.

Good grief, all of the wordy postings by a lot of posturing righteous
ones on this whole subject!

Kim, the FCC authorized your license and your callsign. Nobody
"authorized" these prissy pompous pejorative-tossing hosers
anything they said. But, they won't quit trying to make fun of you.
Mighty Macho Morsemen won't quit until the last code key is
torn from their cold, dead fingers.

WMD

[KØHB]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote

> I thought I was seeing Hans with something other
> than a gorilla thumping message.

I never thump my gorilla. My dad said I'd go blind if I did.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

[N2EY]

Leo > wrote in message >...
> Jim,
>
> Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see,
> or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim,

[callsign deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kim a licensed radio amateur]

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

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

> A simple apology to her would have been appropriate.

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

> The right thing to do.

In your opinion. Mine's different.
>
> Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here
> yourself - frankly, you should know better.

Where is the insult in not using a word or phrase I think is
inappropriate?
>
> Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the
> act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric.

I don't see it that way at all.

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

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

> I suspect that few here join you in that belief.

Doesn't matter. Your quote below is quite appropriate. At times, Dr. King
held standards and beliefs that were not popular. His adherence to those
standards and beliefs was considered "insulting" by some. Should he have
listened to them, or followed his conscience?
>
> "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
> comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
> controversy."

Rev. Dr.

> Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

"Kim" > wrote in message >...
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Leo
> >
> > writes:
> >
> > >Jim,
> > >
> > >Reply follows:
> > >
> > >On 10 Jan 2004 20:56:07 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article >, Leo
> >
> > >>writes:
> > >>
> > >>>On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>In article >, "Kim"
> > >>>>writes:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's
> > >>>>your
> > >>>>perception, not my intent.
> > >>>
> > >>>But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to
> > >>>acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public
> > >>>forum.
> > >>
> > >>I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me?
> > >
> > >Obvious - her right to be recognized by her legally-issued callsign.
> >
> > Who says that anyone has that right? I've been called all kinds of
> > names here, rather than my callsign, and no one has said my
> > rights were violated.
> > >>
> > >>>That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as
> > >>>well!
> > >>
> > >>I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me?
> > >
> > >See above.
> > >>
> > >>>Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own
> > >>>personal morals and prejudices upon others?
> > >>
> > >>Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the same
> > >>to me.
> > >>
> > >>Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my
> > >>posts?
> > >
> > >Of course not -
> >
> > But that's exactly what is being demanded of me. You're saying that if I
> > write
> > a post and refer to Kim, I *must* use her callsign. You're saying I do
> > *not* have the right to simply refer to her as "Kim".
> >
> > oh wait - I just did....
>
> GASP! Is that sarcasm from you, Jim?! No way!

No sarcasm at all, Kim. Satire and a bit of irony. I
knew you would pick up on that, btw.

> > >but that does not confer upon you the right to remove
> > >or alter her personal data without her permission!
> >
> > "personal data"? Everyone here knows she's a ham, and knows her callsign.
> > In all of the 7+ years I've been reading rrap, there's been only one Kim.
> > There have been at least 4 Jims, though.
>
> (original attributed "period" left above). And, Jim, by the same token
> "everyone here" (a very general statement I might add--coming from you)
> knows you disagree with my callsign and "everyone here" knows that you have
> generally refrained from repeating it in a post. "Everyone here" knows
> that. But "no one there" may know that when the post is encountered through
> a search, casual observation, new folks, whatever.

Then they will quickly discern that from reading one or two posts in
this
thread...
>
> > > <---- these two attributes inserted to "lock in" the attribution (I do
> that all the time, nearly every post)
> > >For the benefit of the amateur hobby, no less....
> >
> > For the exercise of my right of free speech that includes *not* having to
> > write certain things.
> >
> > >>>Did anyone here ask you
> > >>>to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally
> > >>>offensive? Certainly not.
> > >>
> > >>I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone else
> > >>can
> > >>post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I have to repeat
> > >>it.
>
> > >>What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it?
> > >
> > >Depends upon the intent, I suppose. You intentionally edited out her
> > >callsign, because you found it "inappropriate".
> >
> > That's right. I did not change the meaning of anyhting anyone wrote. No
> > one who reads this thread will think that Kim is not a ham.
> >
>
> My perception says you *did* change the meaning of something I submitted
> (i.e., wrote).

Well, it's *my* perception that counts...(where did I read that?)

> I intend for anyone, *anyone* looking at that list to see
> the same, the *exact same* thing in each and everyone's submission. No else
> had to ask you to include their callsign: you made the conscious decision to
> "just" insert everyone's callsign--*but mine.* Therefore, there is an
> implied "difference" to a casual observer. I do not wish my submission to
> be any different from anyone else's, as the difference could mean to be
> taken as negative or positive--and whatever impression it makes is not
> important to me. I don't want there to *be any difference* between my
> submission, oh: *as an amateur radio operator*, as any other amateur radio
> operator.

Then change your callsign to something appropriate to the ARS, Kim.
>
> If Len Anderson, for example, submitted his prediction of a date that CW
> testing will be removed from the amateur licensing process,

Who is Len Anderson? ;-)

Why should I care ;-) ;-)

> a) would you insert his submission,

Maybe. Maybe not.

> b) don't you find his whole general nature abhorrent

Yes. His behavior is very inappropriate - even to Usenet.


> and would you insert his submission anyway

Maybe. Maybe not.

> and, c) would you insert his
> first and last name, just first name, etc?

Depends. He has used so many different screen names and signatures...
>
> > ><--- these attributes inserted
> > >If you aren't
> > >comfortable with her callsign, why would you not pass the pool on to
> > >someone who would be willing to handle it without prejudice?
> >
> > Because I have no prejudice in the matter. The word "prejudice"
> > derives from "pre-judge", meaning to judge before all the facts are
> > in. That's not the case here - the facts are in.
>
> You cannot, on one hand, state that my callsign is a bad thing for the
> ARS--and you did state that

I said it was "inappropriate".

That's my opinion. YMMV.

>--then, on the other hand, state that you have no
> prejudice.

Your choice of callsign is inappropriate and I have no
prejudice in the matter.

See? I just did what you said I cannot do.

> You *do* have prejudice and you demonstrate it every time you
> delete my callsign from a post.

Not prejudice. Standards that you disagree with. Calling my
standards prejudices is inaccurate.

> I've never (ahem, never) noticed if you
> keep my "signature" to my posts when you are replying to them, Jim. Do you?

Look and see.

> Or is my callsign just as offensive then as when I *intend* to include
> myself as an amateur radio in a list you have *generally* invited people to
> join?

Look and see.

> You have never stated "any offensive callsigns will not be listed."

I've never seen any reason to state that.

> You have never stated, "Kim, I will include you in the list if you wish, but
> I will not include your callsign." You've actually never stated anything as
> to why you were refraining from submitting my prediction with my callsign
> *ATTRIBUTED* to it.

Word games, Kim. You can do better than that.

> You deliberately change the intention of my message by
> leaving my callsign out. *You*, Jim, did the *FIRST* deleting of
> attributions and, I might add, you have continued to do it for--what--over a
> year, about a year, somewhere around there.

> > ><---these attributes inserted
> > > Wouldn't
> > >that be the right thing to do? There is nothing illegal or immoral
> > >with that callsign, except perhaps in the mind of the reader!
> >
> > There's nothing illegal about it.
> >
> > >>Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the
> > >>original
> > >>list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even *should* not
> > >>do the
> > >>list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to censor *me*.
> > >>
> > >>If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included, that's
> > >>their
> > >>right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote something I did
> > >>not.
> > >
> > >See above.
> >
> > Where?
> >
> > >>>>>I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the
> > >>>>>attributes of
> > >>>>>the original message simply to include my callsign in the list.
>
> > >>>Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by
> > >>>the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me!
>
> > >>So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo?
> > >
> > >Didn't say that, Jim - I said that two wrongs do not make a right.
> > >Hers, and yours.
> >
> > I do not see that I have done anything wrong.
> >
>
> Of course not. You probably *don't* have any prejudice where your own
> decsions and actions have been made. But, by my perception, you are *JUST
> AS WRONG* to take away--or leave out--*ATTRIBUTION TO MY CALLSIGN* as I am
> to take away--or leave out--attribution characters in an newsgroup post.

Well, we disagree about that.

> I daresay, though, your deletion is far more offensive than mine.

I daresay the opposite is true.

> The basis,
> meaning, and original message and intent of that message was in no way
> harmed or changed when I added my callsign to the list. None. Except,
> perhaps, that it then could have looked like you had (God forbid) typed my
> callsign.

And that is the problem.
>
> Your deletion--or leaving out, in this case--deliberately makes it look like
> I have no callsign.

Anyone reading rrap knows better.
>
> > >>>><---these attributes inserted
> > >>>>At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the >
> > >>>>symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I
> > >>>>chalked that one up to a simple typo and said nothing.
>
> > >>>>Then, you peeled off *all* the > symbols, including the one by my
> > >>>>signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made.
>
> > >>Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was their
> > >>right to do it?
> > >
> > >No - but that isn't the issue here.
> >
>
> I agree. That isn't the issue for me, either. I think the real issue is
> exhibiting a form of respect for another individual who has earned the right
> to have a callsign attributed to her--*WHETHER OR NOT* you agree with the
> callsign.

So you're saying that everyone who has a callsign has the right to
have
that callsign included. Yet you don't mention Larry's callsign in this
post....

> The one thing that Larry Roll has never, ever done--to his credit
> arrrghhhh, yes I said that--is "strip" me of my callsign. You have, Jim,
> and your actions are wrong. They are not only wrong, they are meanspirited
> and, to me, hateful.

That was not my intent. I apologize if my actions bothered you. But my
actions follow my standards and I will not compromise them.
>
> > <---this attribute inserted
> > Yes, it is. You are avoiding any criticism of Kim's actions. You're
> > telling me what I *must* or *should* do in my posts, based on *your*
> > personal morals and judgements - and then criticizing me for doing
> > what I think best in my own postings, based on *my* personal morals
> > and judgements.
> >
> > >Your obvious discomfort with her
> > >call sign, and your intentional removal of it from your posts, is.
> > >You know that it angers Kim, but to do it anyway - because *you*
> > >consider it improper.
> >
> > Sure. Don't I have the right to do that?
> >
>
> No. You don't.

And I say I do.

> Not in a "general" list you are compiling, where you have
> made no mention of how people will be listed. It was intended by me--and
> was when I first submitted my prediction--that I would be listed *just as
> every other amateur radio operator.* You *do not*, Jim--whether you think
> you do or not--have the right to *disascociated* me from my callsign.
> Period.

By what authority do you tell me that?

> But, especially in a list where you've invited people to join, yet
> you did not say anyone would be listed in any way differently than anyone
> else.
>
> > <---this attribute inserted
> > Just as she got that callsign, and continues to keep it, even
> > though she knows others consider it inappropriate and that
> > it angers others.
> >
> > She has her right to that callsign, and I have my right not
> > to publicize it here. But you deny my right.
> > <---this attribute inserted
>
> You do not have the right to list me "differently" than any other amateur
> radio operator.

Yes, I do.

> You have the right to refrain from having my callsign in a
> post, I could agree on that. But NOT a list.

Your opinion noted. Mine's different.
>
> > >>>>>I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other
> > >>>>>person has a problem with that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect
> > >>>>your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that
> > >>>>you do not give others.
> > >>>
> > >>>Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right?
> > >>
> > >>Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my
> > >>posts. I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong".
> > >
> > >Why not? You are deliberately censoring her call from your posts,
> > >aren't you?
> >
> > Nope. I'm editing it out.
> >
>
> Worse. To censor would be to refrain from REPOSTING any submissions wherein
> I had added my prediction.

Which I did not do because I don't censor anyone but myself.

> That would have been far more respectable. My
> response would have been to ask you why you were not including me; you would
> have explained, and I would have respected--fully--your decision to act on a
> belief you have in a respectable manner. I do not respect your deliberate
> act to deny me listed as an amateur radio operator in a list of other
> amateur radio operators.

That's fine. I do not respect your choice of callsign. That does not
mean I have no respect for *you*.
> >
> > "Censoring" would be if I tried to prevent her from posting it at all. I
> > have not done that, and would not if I could.
> >
> > >Do you believe that denying her right to be recognized by
&g