In article , Leo
writes:
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.
But it is! And that's one of my points.
Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's.
They are shared in this case by some other people, so your
statement of "no one else's" isn't true.
Let's clear that one off - agreed?
Once you agree that they are shared by some but not all others, yes.
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.
Whether or not it's someone's business is an issue, too.
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?
OK, fine. You have no problem with my not using her callsign.
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.
BINGO!
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.
Understood.
Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment
Why? It is that inappropriateness which was the cause of the whole thing.
....do you see where she might get that feeling?
Sure.
Do you see where others might get the same or similar feelings?
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.
That's OK. You can post her callsign, my callsign, or nobody's callsign in
*your* posts. Just don't try to get me to post them or not post them in *my*
posts....
It would have been an
easy compromise to make,
Easy - and not in acordance with my standards.
and woulld potentially have offended no one.
Incorrect. It would have offended me.
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 it would *not* treat everyone equally. Those with appropriate callsigns
would
not get to see them posted. Everyone would suffer for one person's choice.
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.)
I use the word "inappropriate". "Wrong" implies a moral judgement.
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?
I know I would be - that's one.
(except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... 
)
I don't see any indication that Dave, K8MN wants Kim to die. I do see an
indication that Dave would like Kim to choose a more appropriate callsign.
So if we assume K8MN agrees with me, that's two.
Perhaps others would feel disrespected too.
So you're saying that Kim's feelings are more important than Jim's (N2EY) and
Dave's (K8MN) feelings. And maybe more.
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.
By your logic, I should change my screen name and email address and how I sign
posts, because they are derived from my callsign, too.
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.
So I should potentially disrespect a bunch of other hams with appropriate
callsigns to please Kim? And if some of them complain, I get to put their
callsigns back but not Kim's?
Why not just do what I did and avoid the potential of disrespecting hams with
appropriate callsigns?
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.
That would be passing the buck.
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 respect her as a fellow amateur. But I also respect other amateurs
with appropriate callsigns.
I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.
What about when your standards cannot be compromised?
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 was not willing to do anything to solve the issue other than complain and
protest.
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".
Also, the word "prejudice" has been used...
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.
It was that it was not *my* (N2EY's) place to decide.
Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.
And I say it's appropriate for me to post the calls and words of hams with
appropriate callsigns and to edit out the calls and words of those who
use inappropriate ones.
Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards
Well, you did. I could even say you disrespected me in the way you did it.
- 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.
I do not agree that your proposed solution wasn't a compromise to my standards.
That's it - that's my point.
And here's one more issue to think about
:
Every community, including the ARS, has its standards. Consider
residential neighborhoods as an analogy.
Some community standards are concretely and legally stated, like
zoning ordinances and building codes. Others are part of the
general community culture, such as keeping one's property in
reasonable repair and not mowing your lawn at 3 AM. A lot
of the latter come under the heading of "being a good neighbor".
If someone wants to be accepted and respected in a community,
it is necessary to act (more or less) in accordance with reasonable
community standards. That doesn't mean everyone must be exactly
alike and never do anything different than the neighbors, but it
*does* mean that community standards need to be considered.
The fact that not all community standards are codified into law doesn't
mean they aren't important. For example, painting one's house in odd
colors and patterns may be legal in some communities, but it's not the
mark of being a "good neighbor".
What Kim wants to do is to reject the ARS' "community standards"
in her choice of callsign, yet still receive the same respect and
acceptance from other hams as those who choose appropriate callsigns.
Just like the person who paints their house purple and orange in a dazzle
pattern, then wonders why the neighbors put up fences and shrubs to
conceal the view.
73 de Jim, N2EY
73 de Jim, N2EY