In article , Leo
writes:
On 22 Jan 2004 09:39:22 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
Leo wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim"
wrote:
Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he
decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.
Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the
attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it.
The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to
support your observation, Kim.
Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign"
that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the
callsign):
"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."
This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him
- it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package',
as it were.
You are mistaken, Leo.
That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced"
about Kim's callsign.
The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion
before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement
"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."
simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I
did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here
on rrap, in use by its holder.
IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other
than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement.
In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were
pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your
use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine
my surprise when I discovered it was for-real!
Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.
You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here,
and not simply on the callsign, aren't you?
Nope.
I'm saying that I didn't have an opinion until I encountered the callsign here.
Your statement that you
did not pre-judge certainly enforces this, does it not?
Nope. All my statement says is that I did not have an opinion until I saw the
callsign. And at first I thought it wasn't a real, FCC issued callsign, but
simply a way of staying anonymous. Like you do, "Leo".
I figured that the person using it here chose it as a screen name
because FCC wouldn't issue such a call. I was mistaken - FCC
*would* issue it, but only as a vanity. Which surprised the
[expletive deleted]
out of me!
I keep hearing that the callsign is inappropriate, but what you really
mean that it is a combination of factors - right?
Wrong. The callsign, and others like it, are simply inappropriate for the
ARS. Just my opinion. That FCC allows them and that hams choose
them doesn't make them any more appropriate for the ARS.
73 de Jim, N2EY