"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
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?
Look and see.
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.
And I don't. YMMV.
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.
Then I'll say it now: I think the FCC should not issue such callsigns,
because
they are inappropriate for the ARS.
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.
I disagree.
---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.
It wasn't, and it won't be. Not by me, anyway. You can post it all you
want,
of course.
---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 varous administrations would issue just any
old four letter combination?
Yes.
I do not.
Time will tell.
---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
(a similarly inappropriate callsign)
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
[word deleted]
or even the
[same word deleted]
itself is not vulgar.
It is inappropriate in many situations. Like amateur radio.
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
[word deleted]
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
[word deleted]
woman.
But that was not the first thing *I* preceived about you, Kim.
And, my callsign uniquely says, "get the
[expletive deleted}
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
[word deleted}
(and they are not).
(I'll take your word for that last statement)
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.
I did not say vulgar. "Inappropriate"
(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.
Amateur radio frequencies "belong" to no one...
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?"
So there is a difference.
---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.
I'd say he's quite right.
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.
I say you are mistaken.
---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.
To say it is inappropriate, and then have it in my posts is to
contradict myself.
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.
Exactly.
---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.
And I respect that defintion.
---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.
And you chose an inappropriate callsign and chose to keep it.
---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
[word deleted]
Because those were the two obvious, prominent reasons =
To others, maybe, but not to me.
---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
[word deleted]
Don't tell me you could "tell" by that picture
that I had big
[word deleted]
Oh, no! It's worse than I thought! ; )
Or better.
That'd be about like Larry being able to tell I'm fat (which I'm not) just
by looking at that picture!
Fat is in the perception of the perceiver....
---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
bwaahaahaa
---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?
There's an FCC form you fill out. Or do it online
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.
Well, that's your perception.
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.
Since I had not used your callsign for a long time, I saw no reason to
do anything different.
---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.
Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had 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.
Did you ever see the film, "Gladiator"?
The emperor thought he was victorious over Maximus, too.
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.
Then you failed, because I don't have that feeling at all. Sorry ;-)
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
[inappropriate callsign deleted]
So let's recap:
With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy
and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.
I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.
I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.
And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.
So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"
73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY
|