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 a
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