I thought I answered this, but apparently not. I'll try again...

Leo wrote in message . ..
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.

That's a moral judgement on your part. You're declaring what should
and should not be an issue to other people. IOW, you're telling them
what to think and what their standards should be when you say it
shouldn't be an issue.

Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

My personal standards are shared by other people. I don't know
how many, but if there's even one other person who shares my
standards, then they're *not* "no one else's".

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.

Why not?

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?

I won't use it in my posts. I'm not legally required to, either.

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.

Then she needs to accept the consequences of that action.

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.

She and you know exactly why her call was omitted.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....

Why? It's the cause of the omission.

do you see where she might get that feeling?

Sure - she wants to be included in the list even though she
disregards the list's standards.

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.

It would have offended me and anyone who agreed with my standards.

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.

That means everyone must suffer in order to avoid the possibility of
Kim's feelings being hurt.

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.

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.

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.)

You're saying her feelings are more important than my standards and my feelings.

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?

Are you sure they aren't?

Why should the people who chose appropriate callsigns not get them
listed in order to appease those who chose inappropriate ones?

(except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

Not at all.

In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only
immediately after Kim's original complaint.

But it wasn't your post. It was my post.

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.

So you'd go through all that and wind up with the calls in the post because
some of us would complain.

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.

That's nice - but by doing so, you are validating her choice of
callsign. I won't do that.

I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.

My standards say that your compromise involves compromising my standards.

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.

She could solve it very easily by choosing an appropriate callsign.

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.

I recall being told it was not *MY* place to judge. And I disagree.
It's my place to judge in terms of what I will and will not validate.

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

Tell it to those who used words like "prejudice" to describe
my 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.


That's fine. And I disagree.

73 de Jim, N2EY