Jim,

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse. Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate. No issue there - that is entirely your right. I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.
Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree. Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim. Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

73, Leo



On 15 Jan 2004 09:40:58 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

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.

Not at all - I'm saying that you have omitted all of the calls so as
not to single her out. Neither compromising your standards nor
offending her.

As you are aware.

Surreal.

No, diversionary, Jim. I have stated the issue many times. You
choose to ignore it.

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.

That is indeed unfortunate, Jim.


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.

Not at all - you are fixated on her callsign being the issue. The
real issue is the manner in which you chose to single her out! As she
told you herself.

Instead, you choose to make a moralistic issue out of it. It is not.


My standards are *exactly* the issue.

No.

Your handling of the situation is the issue. As stated many times. Not
your standards.


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.

Incorrect - that is not what you are being "told" at all. Please
reread my previous comments.

As for your standards being more important, they are not - they are of
equal importance. Hers and yours. Unless you are more important than
kim, that is.

So let me ask the question straight out:

Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?

Both are equally important, Jim. Unless you are somehow more
important, as started above...


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.

Perhaps, then, there was no attempt to bully Kim. I stand corrected,
Gladiator


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.

No problem - but you could have left them all out, couldn't you? As
stated many times. A compromise indeed - but not a compromise of your
standards at all.

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.

No arguement with the first two points at all Jim - it is your
omitting just one callsign (hers) from your post that is the issue.
I have said repeatedly, as has Kim, that you should have used no one's
call in your post if the situation bothered you that much. That would
have solved the problem without compromising your standards, wouldn't
it? Who would have a reason to complain about that? She would have
been treated equally to everyone else (her complaint), and her
callsign would not have appeared in your post (your complaint). Is
there a problem with this?

If you believe that her call is inappropriate, and you do not wish to
use it in a post, those are your standards and are deserving of the
respect of everyone. But, that is not the central issue of my posts
to you - the above paragraph is.


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.

You consider singling someone out and against their wishes courteous
and friendly?

I don't.


Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

Not the issue.

Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it?

I don't - that is not the issue at all.

Your standards do not allow you to use her callsign in a post. No
problem there at all, Jim. Omitting just hers was unfair, though -
that is the issue. As stated many times.

That is the issue that I am discussing. Not you, though - you are
trying to shift it to a position defensable by your standards.


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. ;-)

I refer exactly to what you wrote. Not what Kim wrote.

But hey, you beat Kim, right?

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.

Your opinion.


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.

Rhetorical, Jim - ...perhaps a tie?

An interesting way to declare a tie, Jim.


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.

Nope. Not the issue.


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:

No. Not at all. Please reread my comments carefully! You are arguing
a different issue.

Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?

That's the central issue, right there.

Nope. Not the issue at all, Jim. As stated many times.

Regarding which is more important, though - both. There was a way to
handle this without compromising either. As has been stated many
times.

Or are you saying that you are more important, Jim?

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.

No.

Not the issue, as you are aware (or should be?). Omitting just her
call in the list is the issue. Just that one call - no others.

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.

Nope. As stated above, and many times. And as you are aware.

An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

Not by me. By you and others.

Nope. The issue has been stated many times.

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.

Nope. Compromise was possible, without impacting your standards. As
you are aware.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue?

That's all I've been doing in these posts.

Nope - you're facing up to a different issue. One that you can
justify with your standards. Please reread my comments carefully.


- 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.

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

Not the issue at all. As has been stated many times.

Are you aware of what you are telling me to do?

Yup - deal with the issue at hand. Not the one that you keep falling
back on.


"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.

Nope. Please reread Mr. Twain's statement.

btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why
not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all?

Guess because it's her choice, Jim. I sure wouldn't want that call
assigned to me, but Kim does. Her way of poking a finger in the eye
of those who judge her by appearance alone, perhaps. Her own personal
reasons, though. And she has every right to have it - it's up to her.

73 de Jim, N2EY