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