Leo wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Leo
writes:
On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
Leo wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip
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.
Jim,
This is really uncharacteristic of you.
That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.
Nope - not that one 
That's the one I was referring to.
Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?
Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct,
which is clearly missing here.
So let me get this straight.
In order to display "gentlemanly conduct", you think I should
use Kim's callsign in my posts. Even though doing so violates
my standards. And even though it was chosen for reasons that
no gentleman would endorse.
Surreal.
As you are aware.
I'm not aware of any ungentlemanly behavior on my part. I
am aware of some ungentlemanly behavior on the part of
others, though.
I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.
You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.
Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.
So her wishes are more important than my standards?
Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue.
Nice attempt at diversion, Leo.
My standards are *exactly* the issue.
I'm being told, again and again, that my choice not to put Kim's
callsign in my posts is "wrong", and that my standards are of lesser
importance than Kim's feelings.
So let me ask the question straight out:
Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?
You remember that, don't you, Jim?
Bully-like behaviour, Jim?
Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.
Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.
Nope. Not from where I sit.
Sorry to hear that, Jim.
Do you want me to lie about it? I won't.
I wouldn't have thought it possible.
It isn't.
(ahem)
That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.
Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?
Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?
Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live
together, making salt when it was against the law....
Very annoying fellow at times.
...but totally unrelated to the issue.
No, totally related to the issue. He was very considerate of other people's
feelings. But that consideration did not keep him from being very very
"annoying" when his standards/values/conscience required it.
My standards require that I not put Kim's call in the list - because I
think it's inappropriate. I'm sorry if someone finds that annoying.
But I'm not going to change it.
As you are aware.
I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.
I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post.
I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous
two statements.
So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"
No.
dang. I thought you of all people would be.
Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.
You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?
Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?
Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed.
Yet you give no examples.
Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.
Not the issue.
Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it?
You know.
But hey, you beat Kim, right!
Not according to Kim.
According to you - read your own post!
Yes, according to me. Not according to Kim.
That's what I wrote.
As you are aware. ;-)
Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.
So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.
That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.
Not true at all, Jim.
I think it is.
Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full
version of this post:
"....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun."
An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim.
Nobody is declaring a draw.
A draw is when neither side thinks they won, or can win, and so the game ends.
In this case, Kim thinks she won, and I think I won. Not a draw.
That's all that matters.....
Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.
Sidestepping the issue.
Yes, you are. Not me.
73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY
Brilliant.
Thank you.
Not really
Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.
Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.
Leo, you are avoiding the central issue:
Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?
That's the central issue, right there.
I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.
The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list.
You mean using her name instead of her callsign.
That was done because of my standards. Using her callsign in that list
was inconsistent with my standard that it's inappropriate. So I didn't
use it. As I have said before, no disrespect, insult, or singling out
were intended.
And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period.
You are saying that I should ignore my standards out of courtesy to Kim.
That having her callsign included in the list, rather than her name, is
more important than any consideration of *my* feelings or standards.
That's the issue.
An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.
Not by me. By you and others.
Say it right out, Leo. Tell me that I should ignore/hide/deny my
standards of what is appropriate in deference to
"courtesy" and Kim's feelings.
Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue?
That's all I've been doing in these posts.
- or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.
How am I fooling myself?
I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.
I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post.
I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous
two statements.
Are you aware of what you are telling me to do?
"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain
Yup.
You want me to keep my standards private, and not act on them, because
they aren't the same as yours. Well, that's just not going to happen.
btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why
not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all?
73 de Jim, N2EY