In article , Mike Coslo writes:

One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how Jan

[Smithers]

got so little
attention compared to Loni Anderson, who has to be one of the scariest
wimmin this lad has ever seen.

It was part of the subtly subversive nature of the show, Mike. All of the
characters were true originals and stereotype-busters.

Part of the subtext was that the more attractive "Bailey" was overlooked
because of people's assumptions rather than the reality. The viewers
saw it, of course. Same for the fact that "Jennifer" was actually in
charge and very intelligent, "Johnny Fever" had an encyclopedic knowledge of
rock and roll, "Venus" had a hidden past that no one suspected, etc.
Appearances were intentionally deceiving.

Remember episodes like the one where Jennifer moves to a new house? Or the ones
with the "Red Wigglers" and "Ferryman Funeral Homes" singing commercials? When
Venus explained the atom in two minutes? Johnny Fever's reaction time after
several drinks? Save The Flim? The list goes on and on..

And truly great music was part of the show, yet never slowed it down.

Yet the show was cancelled even though it was #6 overall in the ratings. The
*overall* ratings. Can you imagine a #6 show that cost almost nothing to make
being cancelled today?

"WKRP" and "Barney Miller" essentially invented the workplace ensemble sitcom
that has no central character.. Before those two shows, almost all sitcoms were
reinventions of the nuclear-family-plus-sidekick based 'The Honeymooners"
and/or "I Love Lucy", (which are quite alike in many respects, except that the
gender roles are reversed in "Lucy"). Most sitcoms today are simply variations
on
Alice, Ralph, Trixie and Ed, or Lucy, Ricky, Ethel and Fred.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"as God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly..."

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote

Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them?

Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and
many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.

Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that
they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.

"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.

It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008
K0HB: January 1, 2011 (first date not in "this decade")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
eliminated in this decade.

I'll put you on the list for January 1, 2011, assuming by "this decade" you
meant the ten years from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:


"Dave Heil" wrote


Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them?

Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.


Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and
many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.


To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.


Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.


Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Nope

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?


Nope


Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?


Nope



Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that
they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.


"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.


It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

I did, but saw no need to comment until the mis-attribute letter came along.


Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

Most of her posts have the correct attributes (or is that
attributification) 8^) How this message became "different" is a mystery.
Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was not. Heck if I did that, I'd send
out an "oops" at least.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article k.net,
"KØHB" writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote

Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them?

Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond
that.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
of having done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which
he and many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's
evaluation of it. But I have tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can*
control what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are
edited out by me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and
email standards. I try to always be clear what words were written by
the original author and what words were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's
choice of callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign,
therefore giving it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.

Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication
of having done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think
that they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my
right.

"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.

It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far
less comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In
fact, I've been omitting it for many months and no one has noticed
until now.


You're kidding, right? Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
didn't notice.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's. But I'm not an Internet cop.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
very prominently displayed to me.

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who
would *least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status
as anything else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise
patronized by me. Or by anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to
change. Deal with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

73 de Jim, N2EY


73 de Alun, N3KIP

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008
K0HB: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")

Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Egbert: September 13, 2003
Jeff: September 29, 2003
Leroy: December 31, 2003
Bill: January 1, 2004
Phil: March 15, 2004
Jim H: April 1, 2004
Jim M: April 15, 2004
Alun: May 1, 2004
Ryan: July 1, 2004
Robert: August 1, 2004
Larry: September 15, 2004
Charles: December 30, 2004
Dee: July 1, 2005
Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")


Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?


Howzat?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Egbert: September 13, 2003
Jeff: September 29, 2003
Leroy: December 31, 2003
Bill: January 1, 2004
Phil: March 15, 2004
Jim H: April 1, 2004
Jim M: April 15, 2004
Alun: May 1, 2004
Ryan: July 1, 2004
Robert: August 1, 2004
Larry: September 15, 2004
Charles: December 30, 2004
Dee: July 1, 2005
Mike: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008

Hans: January 1, 3000 (first date not in "this millenium")


Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?


Howzat?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't know
his place?) ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bert Craig wrote:

Hey Mike,

My friends call me Bert. Only Len calls me Egbert. (Who said he doesn't know
his place?) ;-)

oops, Sorry, Bert! I wasn't sure who everyone was by callsign, so I
looked it up on arr.org.

- Mike KB3EIA -