Jim - did I miss your reply on this one?

73, Leo

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:11:37 GMT, Leo wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse.

There are several issues, not just one.

OK - I'm listening.


Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

Let's see what you've got, then.

Let's go.


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.

That's correct. It's also an issue to some people.

OK - fair enough. And it shouldn't be. Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

No issue there - that is entirely your right.

Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others.

Others may, but who cares - it's none of their business.


I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.

Also correct. And also an issue to some people, who say that my deletion of
Kim's call is "wrong".

Let's focus on that one, and agree that deleting her call from your
post is necessary for you to due to your standards. I have no issue
there at all. If you don't want to use it, OK. Let's clear this one
off too - agreed?


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.

And I disagree. Kim singled herself out by choosing that callsign. As you are
aware.

Yes she did - and quite intentionally, too, as she has stated.

That wasn't, however, what I was saying in my statement above. Simply
that Kim feels that you singled her out too, by omitting just her call
from the list.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....do you see
where she might get that feeling?


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?

No, it wouldn't.

Honestly, I dont agree with you on this point. It would have been an
easy compromise to make, and woulld potentially have offended no one.
More on this further down in the post!


That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim.

No, it isn't, but we'll get to that later. Right now, let's discuss that issue.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that I should either include
everyone's callsign, or no one's.

Now since I don't wish to include Kim's callsign, that leaves only the option
of including no one's callsign, in order to accomodate Kim's feelings.

Agreed - in order to treat everyone equally, that would be the only
other option available given the situation.


But what about everyone else's feelings, including mine? I want my call listed.

I would feel disrespected to be listed by name rather than callsign or name and
callsign on an amateur radio newsgroup.

Yes, and I believe that Kim feels exactly the same way, Jim. For the
same reason as you, I suppose - she is also a ham. (She does not feel
that her call is in any way wrong, remember.)


Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only
immediately after Kim's original complaint. And seen what comments
came back next. If I had several legitimate complaints (without the
agendas that we have seen in several recent posts {not yours, Jim!)
which obviously relate to Kim personally rather than just her
call...), then yes there would be no other alternative than to put the
calls back - but I would have written and offered Kim the option of
going by name only or dropping out before I went ahead. At least I'd
be able to tell Kim that I tried to fix it for her, but it didn't work
out with the rest of the group.

Maybe it's just me, but I would try first to resolve her complaint if
possible, out of respect for her as a fellow amateur. I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.


Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be
on the list..

True, but that was after the had become frustrated with trying to
solve this issue.


Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

Yes, they are. I've been told that "it's not my place" to determine whether a
callsign is appropriate or not. I've been told that my actions are "wrong".

As you are aware.

I did state that it is in fact no one individual's place to determine
what is or is not appropriate for the ARS - that role belongs to the
regulators, and to the will of the majority of us, I suppose.

Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.

Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards - simply to point
out that perhaps a more amicable solution to this issue was possible
without compromising anyone's standards - finding a common ground for
all.

That's it - that's my point.


73, Leo

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

Leo wrote in message
m...
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

remainder of post snipped - in the hope that the above covers the outstanding issues well enough.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo