In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

Kim --- Jim has every right to not include your callsign in his messages.

I agree.

Jim --- Kim has every right to feel whatever she feels about that, and to
post messages which make her "feel victorous" in return.

I agree again.

In other words, you both have the right to make yourselves look like
laughable self-righteous sanctimonious twits, and you both are certainly
doing a superb job of that.

We're just following your lead, Hans.

All the high-sounding babble about usenet attribution rules is exactly
that..... babble.

Foma! All foma!


Attribute that.

I got yer attributions right here....

With all kind wishes,


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


So let me get this straight. Newsgroup rules are cool to be broken?


Far as I know, there are no Newsgroup rules, only habits and widely accepted
conventions. Any one who takes exception to exceptions, is certain to
accumulate an exceptional quantity of exceptions. If you are starting a
collection, I have included three above.

I take exception to that.

73 de Jim "gorilla my dreams" N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
I think Kim's complaint is valid. Jim
obviously has some issue with her
callsign. Without saying why, he refuses
to use her callsign as he has done with
everyone else on his list. That callsign
was issued by the FCC and, if Jim has
an issue with that, he should take it up
with the FCC. Regardless, until the
FCC says otherwise, that callsign is
legitimate and should be treated as
such by all within the Ham radio
community - just as any ham operator,
including Jim, would expect his or her
own callsign to be treated.


Nice, Dwight. Very touchy-feely and
politically correct.

No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
they may not deserve it.

I'm not in disagreement over the use of manners.

Sadly, too many people today consider polite
manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
correctness by those people.

Sadly, some people attempt to forge a tie between the terms "polite" and
"political correctness". There is no link between them. Jim didn't
treat Kim's callsign badly; he didn't use it at all. After all, it
could be easily argued that Kim didn't treat amateur radio with respect
in choosing her call.
A number of us believe that her choice was tacky and tactless.

I'm certain that Jim has an issue with
Kim's call. Quite a number of us have
issues with Kim's call. Even Riley
Hollingsworth has issues with Kim's
call. For you to attempt the equation
of Kim's tacky choice of vanity call
with Jim's non-vanity call is ludicrous.

Regardless, the agency that Hollingsworth works for, and that issued the
other callsigns on Jim's list, does equate the validity of Kim's callsign to
Jim's. Some may wish to dismiss that, but doing so perhaps says a lot about
their own character.

It might say something about their character but it doesn't say anything
negative about it. The FCC looks the other way with regard to language
used in prime time television these days. If I object and state that I
find the use of such language to be offensive, it says nothing negative
at all about my character. The FCC often does and often has abdicated
its responsibilities in a number of areas. That it does so, does not
confirm the correctness of those inactions.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

"N2EY" 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.

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")
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim,

Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them? That kind of thing could further
reflect on your character.


Dave: First,

[word deleted]

you and what you think "character" is all about. You
are nothing short of a self-serving, high-nosed, snobbish, educated idiot--and
nothing more; and some of those are even questionable.

It would seem that all of those are questionable. Thanks though, for
proving my point.

Second: on
character, like I care.

That has long been evident.

And, if I've made a post I'VE OBVIOUSLY CHANGED IT OR AM JUST PLAIN
REPOSTING IT. What is so hard about that?

It isn't hard at all; it is evident. It is also wrong.
I dropped a word used by you in my comments above. It is clear from
this post that *you* did not drop the word and that I did so.


Jim refuses to put my callsign
associated with my prediction.

Good for him. Live with it.

I will add it whenever I feel (yeah, one of
those "feeling" things you know nothing about) like it.

I wouldn't want you to get tangled up in reality or fact, Kim.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration:

I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking the time to gather the facts.

Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you
wrote it.

That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him.

It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They
exist. They can't now be denied.

Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I have a bandwagon?

For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a
post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my
callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to
display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

That's simply incorrect.

Let's do another example for purposes of illustration:

I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual.

If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration
added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments,
I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came
from you. Are you starting to get the picture?

However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars in
some display of dislike for me--then go for it.

No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line
between what's right and what's wrong.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

If I were in this situation, I would post a polite note with my
callsign, and not post it as if Jim did the posting. I know until I
looked back up at the from area on the screen, I though it was from Jim.

I dobt any of us wants our posts altered. We could eventually get like
the crazies thaat post here from tim to time.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Oh, yeah, Mike. And God forbid that you think that Jim posted my prediction
with MY callsign next to it, rather than my name!!! Oh, that would be just
awful...

Jim is under no obligation to use your callsign.

Dave K8MN

Kim wrote:

Ahem...at least he hasn't said he's going to "pray for you" yet. I love it
when someone says that to me with that certain "tone of voice" LOL

I'll bet you get that a lot. However, why should I do all of the work
for you?
Are you too busy to pray for yourself?

Dave K8MN

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?

Of course not. But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others?

Alter the preception? Blatently omitting? How silly!

Jim is aware of what he's doing.

I'm sure he is. Who can tell him that he must use a callsign that he
finds offensive?

Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).

Kim could ask me to forget some things she's written in the past, but
that doesn't mean that I should, I must or that I will. Kim could ask
me to loan her money but that doesn't mean that I should, I must or that
I will.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Jim is disrespectful to me to make it look like I am not an amateur when he
chooses not to associate me as an amateur when I've made a conscious
decision to participate in something he's providing for fun.

Oh, for crying out loud, Kim.

I
deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

No, that isn't what you did.

I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
a problem with that.

That has been evident for a very long time.

Dave K8MN

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 09:15:19 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
Jim,

Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see,
or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim,

[callsign deleted]

Your opinion noted, Leo. However, after much consideration, I do not
consider my omission of Kim's callsign to be disrespectful. YMMV.

As stated before, it wasn't your omission of Kim's callsign that was
disrespectful, it was the context that it was done in - omitting hers,
but leaving everyone else's intact. Repeatedly.

As you are aware.

I am aware that you preceive it that way. Are you aware that no disrespect
was intended?

Your statements in defense of your conduct are based entirely upon
circular logic, rationalization, contradiction and denial - indicating
that you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your actions
towards a fellow ham here on the group.

Basically what you are saying is that I should accept Kim's callsign
as appropriate for the ARS, and use it here, because:

1) FCC issued it
2) She asked me to
3) *You* don't 'have a problem' with the callsign, and therefore *I*
shouldn't, either.

No - I said that Kim's callsign IS a valid one, accepted by the FCC
for use in the ARS.

It's a *legal* one. No one disputes that.

You can dislike it, revile it, be insulted by it
- whatever you choose to do. But, you must respect the fact that it
is a valid amateur callsign - because it is! Just like yours, issued
officially by the FCC.

I did not ask for this specific callsign. Kim asked for hers.

Jim, you aren't the guy who gets to determine what is or is not
appropriate for the ARS.

Not true!

We *all* have a say in what is and is not appropriate for the ARS. And that
includes me.

That role belongs to the regulatory authorities.

And to all of us hams.

Whatever your problem is with this particular call, it
is between you and the FCC - not us! If they declare that it is
inappropriate, then it will be withdrawn. If not, it stays. Whatever
it is - it's their decision - not yours and mine!

That's only true as far as the issuance of a callsign. Not its use.

As you are aware.

As I have stated before, no disrespect was intended. But I am not
going to use Kim's callsign in my posts, because I think it is
inappropriate for the IRS.

In your opinion, Jim - not necessarily the opinion of the FCC, or many
members of the ARS.

I'm not telling them not to use Kim's callsign.

You are telling me I *must* use it.

Not gonna happen.

However, no one is trying to say that you must
use Kim's callsign in your posts - the issue is with your intentional
exclusion of only her callsign from your list!

Which is the same as saying I *must* use it!

As you are aware.

You can use it in your posts all you want. So can Kim. I won't try to
impose my standards on others, even though they try to impose their
standards on me.

No one is attempting to impose standards upon you, Jim.

Yes, they are.

The message
was (quite clearly) that it is inappropriate and disrespectful to omit
just this one callsign from the pool, while leaving all others intact.
As you well know. And as clearly stated in previous posts.

As you are aware.

"inappropriate and disrespectful" by whose standards?

Answer: YOURS!

[Kim a licensed radio amateur]

told you straight up that she felt disrespected by your actions.

I have felt disrespected by her action in choosing that callsign.
I told her that straight up a long time ago.

Not sure I understand why you would feel personally disrespected by
Kim's choice of callsign, Jim - I don't imagine that she did it to
offend you personally.

She didn't. But that was my perception. And to paraphrase Kim: 'that's the
perception that counts'

You are of course free to express your opinion regarding this issue,
however - but to do so in public isn't always a wise choice. Would
you walk up to someone in a crowded mall and tell her exactly what you
thought about their skitr being too short?

Depends on who it was.

Of course not - that would
be impolite. And not too smart, perhaps - she might smack you! :)

What if it was my teenage daughter? (Not saying I do or do not have one).

Some opinions are best kept to one's self :)

And some are best expressed rather than repressed.

A simple apology to her would have been appropriate.

I apologize if my posts have upset anyone. That was not the intent.
But I will not compromise my standards on this to avoid hurting
someone's feelings.

The right thing to do.

In your opinion. Mine's different.

Compromising standards isn't the issue, Jim. As you are aware.

No, it's *exactly* the issue. To use Kim's call here would compromise my
standards.

If you had changed your poll to list everyone by their first name,
would that have compromised your standards? Of course not. It would
have created a Level Playing Field, and caused little fuss at all.

It would have caused confusion because there are several people with
the same first name here.

It would have removed the opportunity for you to try and punish Kim
for her poor choice of callsign, though - say, you weren't trying to
do that, were you?

Nope.

Of course not - your standards are too high for
that......aren't they?

Yep.

Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here
yourself - frankly, you should know better.

Where is the insult in not using a word or phrase I think is
inappropriate?

As stated above, and in previous posts - it is a situational thing.
For example, yelling "Hey, Dick!" to a friend sitting over at a bar is
quite appropriate. Yelling "Hey, Dick!" to some biker sitting at the
bar is not.

What if that's the biker's name?

Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is
everything!

As you are aware.

Yet yelling both phrases is *legal* - although not always
advisable or appropriate.

And in the context of amateur radio callsigns, I think Kim's choice
of callsign is inadvisable and inappropriate.

Your own logic proves it.

Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the
act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric.

I don't see it that way at all.

Do you believe that these
actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur
service?

Yes. You may disagree, but I will not describe that disagreement
as "prejudice", "censorship" or "self-serving rhetoric".

What part of this statement are you having trouble with, Jim?

The words ""prejudice", "censorship" and "self-serving rhetoric", for a start.
They are inaccurate

Definitions (and specific usage within the thread):

Prejudice: "an opinion formed beforehand" (your opinion that the
callsign

[inappropriate callsign deleted]

is inappropriate to the ARS)

It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the
callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues.

Therefore, it's not prejudice.

Censorship: "the supression of something considered objectionable"
(like the intentional omission of just one callsign in a list,
perhaps?)

I use the word "inappropriate", not "objectionable". And I did not
"suppress" it - I just won't put it in a post of mine.

Therefore, it's not censorship.

Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem)

The phrase was "self-serving rhetoric", not just the word "rhetoric".

AHEM.

I suspect that few here join you in that belief.

Doesn't matter.

It certainly should!

So you're saying the majority opinion should rule? What if
the majority says it's inappropriate?

Your quote below is quite appropriate. At times, Dr. King
held standards and beliefs that were not popular. His adherence to those
standards and beliefs was considered "insulting" by some. Should he have
listened to them, or followed his conscience?

Dr. King was a champion of equality and equal rights - a mission which
cost him his life. He was dedicated to ensuring that people were
treated equally, regardless of the "personal standards" of those who
felt that they were not entitled to equal treatment.

Equal rights under law. Equal opportunities. Not equal results. Not
an abandonment of standards.

Do you treat everyone equally, Jim?

I treat them appropriately. What is appropriate for an adult is not
appropriate for a child. To treat them equally could be very unsafe.

Even when you have a strong bias
against some characteristic of theirs that you find objectionable? No
matter what?

The only bias I have is in my Southgate Type 7.

I'd refrain from drawing parallels to Dr. King until you can state
that unequivocally. Without prejudice.

I state without prejudice that I don't have the bias you accuse me of.
I have standards that I adhere to.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy."

Rev. Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

And at this 'time of challenge and controversy', I say that Kim's
callsign is inappropriate to the ARS, and I will not repeat it
in my posts. No insult is meant by this action. But it will not
change.

Once again, no one is forcing you to use the dreaded callsign in your
posts. Again, Jim, the issue is singling out one individual because
there is something that you don't like personally! As you well know.

One's principles and beliefs, however righteous and sacrosanct, do not
convey the right to treat others disrespectfully.

Some people said that when people organized marches and protests against
things that violated *their standards*, they were acting disrespectfully.

To return to the quotation from Dr. King - in this time of challenge
and controversy, someone might choose to admit that they was wrong in
singling out one individual due to personal opinion, and revise his
list to indicate equal respect for the status of all participants.
Someone else might choose to twist the words and concepts around ad
infinitum to justify their actions. Still another would take the moral
high ground, and justify their actions based on rigorous personal
standards and ideals.

Which of these represents the Right Thing To Do? I know.

And by saying you know, you are doing exactly what you describe.

So do you, Jim.

I don't use the term "friend" to describe Kim, because she reserves
that word for a very select group, and I respect that choice of hers.

But I will say that one of the characteristics of a true friend is
telling the truth as the true friend sees it, even if it is not
what someone wants to hear, and even if a person may get their
feelings hurt or feel insulted by that truth.

An excellent homily, Jim - but with a fatal flaw. True friends would
conduct this level of personal information interchange only in
private, and with compassion, sensitivity and dignity. A true friend
would not choose to do that in a public forum, would they, Jim?

Some would. I did. So did Kim, and so have you. And while I respect
Kim's use of the word "friend", I would say that the honesty and openness
here - even in disagreement - are the actions of "true friends".

73 de Jim, N2EY