|
"Leo" wrote in message
... ...not to mention N0LUV - N0HUG, N0KIS, nothing. That's certainly N0FUN. N0MAN should be treated like that. Is there N0END to these callsigns? That's it - I can't take N0MOE....N0WAY, N0HOW..... 73, Leo ...who has discovered an unexplored world VANITY!!! That is why is a VANITY callsign! One can be creative and individualistic with the program! Kim W5TIT |
Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that the ARRL would publish this
list (and it's excellent humour!) withour some serious re-editing...- QST is a pretty - um, formal - magazine. But they should - Definitely first-class material! 73, Leo On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:21:00 -0600, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Alex? You really, really should send this in to the ARRL for submission to QST. I'd leave the "taking a healthy dump" part out, though! Kim W5TIT snip |
"Leo" wrote in message
... Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that the ARRL would publish this list (and it's excellent humour!) withour some serious re-editing...- QST is a pretty - um, formal - magazine. But they should - Definitely first-class material! 73, Leo On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:21:00 -0600, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Alex? You really, really should send this in to the ARRL for submission to QST. I'd leave the "taking a healthy dump" part out, though! Kim W5TIT Hmmm, well. Does that mean that if anyone of the "seriously needs editing" callsigns wrote something in to QST that, no matter how technical, pertinent or informative the item might be, it would not get published? Hmmm, Kim W5TIT :-o |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Y'know...the thing I think that fascinates me most in all this stuff is that, when I was asked about my callsign I could have just said, "none of your business." My callsign *could* have (snip) As I'm sure you've figured out, some in this newsgroup can (and will) pick a fight over anything. And they'll make it sound like the end of the world. Your callsign is an easy target. But, if you had another callsign, they'd find something else to fight about. I actually believe that having a 'W' call is offensive to many long-licensed hams; much more offensive than having a suffix of any sort. ;) A friend, a very long time ham with a "W" call, suggested my callsign. He liked the "W5" part (same as a call he had years ago, I think) and thought the "net" part was cute because of my long computer experience (I was helping him with his computer at the time). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Excellent question!
73, Leo On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:21:02 -0600, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that the ARRL would publish this list (and it's excellent humour!) withour some serious re-editing...- QST is a pretty - um, formal - magazine. But they should - Definitely first-class material! 73, Leo On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:21:00 -0600, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Alex? You really, really should send this in to the ARRL for submission to QST. I'd leave the "taking a healthy dump" part out, though! Kim W5TIT Hmmm, well. Does that mean that if anyone of the "seriously needs editing" callsigns wrote something in to QST that, no matter how technical, pertinent or informative the item might be, it would not get published? Hmmm, Kim W5TIT :-o |
All this from an idiot whose primary radio is an ht. How pathetic.
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Y'know...the thing I think that fascinates me most in all this stuff is that, when I was asked about my callsign I could have just said, "none of your business." My callsign *could* have (snip) As I'm sure you've figured out, some in this newsgroup can (and will) pick a fight over anything. And they'll make it sound like the end of the world. Your callsign is an easy target. But, if you had another callsign, they'd find something else to fight about. I actually believe that having a 'W' call is offensive to many long-licensed hams; much more offensive than having a suffix of any sort. ;) A friend, a very long time ham with a "W" call, suggested my callsign. He liked the "W5" part (same as a call he had years ago, I think) and thought the "net" part was cute because of my long computer experience (I was helping him with his computer at the time). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Nice!
Alex Flinsch wrote: In article , Arf! Arf! wrote: All of you need to take a healthy dump and get a life. There is not a single mention of policy in this entire thread. Agreed... FWIW I have been following this thread for a while, and have been very amused by it. Recently I downloaded a copy of the FCC amateur database to use in some club research, just for the heck of it, I did a few queries on the database tables... There are a total of 8 hams who are proud of their TIT's, and another 42 who wear a BRA, there are no hams with the call of N0BRA (perhaps she is among the 50 who SAG). There are a total of 11 hams who are an ASS and 37 FCK'rs, but no FUK'rs or FUC'rs. 9 are DUM, and a surprising 43 are full of SHT. There are 47 NIT's to go along with the 56 WIT's. The FCC has 72 hams, but has been getting careless with what they give calls to, as there are 54 DOGs, 78 CATs, 56 COWs, 25 PIGs, 87 FOXes, 51 GNU, 67 RATs, and an additional 56 with FUR. There are 63 hams living in the SEA, along with 51 EEL's and 60 COD. A total of 47 hams LIE, while 43 are telling the TRUth. Ham radio seems to be a family hobby as there are 68 DAD's, 73 MOM's, 45 who claim to be SIS, 38 BROs, 68 KIDs , and 57 BOYs. There are 49 hams who like to YAK, while 54 each prefer PSK or FSK, an additional 70 are SSB users and 50 use a VOX. This greatly outnumbers the 65 who use a KEY and 67 BUG users. Figuring out the genders of hams is a bit confusing, as there are 59 GUY's, 54 GAL's, 52 MEN, and another 36 MAN. This count also includes W0MEN, W0MAN, N0MAN, and N0MEN. Sexual orientation is also difficult to determine as 24 hams have SEX, but only one with N0SEX There are 8 who are FAGs, while 10 claim to be GAY. Baldness is also common among hams, as there are 56 who wear a HAT, another 66 CAP wearers, and 39 who have WIG. I did not include N0HAT, N0CAP and N0WIG in those counts. There are also 49 with a TIE, and one with N0TIE. Age does not seem to matter to hams either as there are almost equal numbers of OLD (59) and NEW (58) hams. An additional 19 think they are GOD, perhaps while they are on the AIR (81) with the 16 LID's, the 67 who are HOT, and the 62 who are BAD. There is a single ham who claims to be K1NG, and another who admits to having N0CLU. There are 56 who like to EAT, 52 TEA drinkers, 54 GIN drinkers, and 51 GUM chewers. With all of this eating going on, there are 49 who are FAT, (including N0FAT), and another 61 who are BIG. There are 37 who eat LOX. Oddly enough there are only 5 JEW's (perhaps because ham is not Kosher??) and 1 Atheist (N0GOD). As for personality traits there are 49 who are ODD, 53 who are SHY and 52 who are SLY. There are 54 who are SAD, and 60 who are MAD. 54 hams have their heads stuck in the MUD, while another 68 are in the SKY There are 55 amateurs who are PRO's, while 96 are content to be HAMs. 61 operators think they are number ONE, while 56 are in second place (TWO). There are 62 hams in TENth place, and a whopping 72 in SIXth. VHF (74) seems to be a bit more popular than UHF (63). The low number of VLF'ers (44) is not surprising, as we do not have a 135 kHZ allocation in the US. There are 49 with a RIG and one poor ham with N0RIG. Alex / AB2RC |
"Arf! Arf!" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: As I'm sure you've figured out, some in this newsgroup can (and will) pick a fight over anything. All this from an idiot whose primary radio is an ht. How pathetic. LOL. See what I mean. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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. 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. 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. No issue there - that is entirely your right. Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be on the list.. 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. 73, Leo On 15 Jan 2004 09:40:58 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message ... On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message . .. On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: snip So let's recap: With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long, lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing. I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards rather than my own. I even got you to admit something good about K3LT. And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of inappropriate words. Jim, This is really uncharacteristic of you. That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable. Nope - not that one :) That's the one I was referring to. Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words? Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct, which is clearly missing here. So let me get this straight. In order to display "gentlemanly conduct", you think I should use Kim's callsign in my posts. Even though doing so violates my standards. And even though it was chosen for reasons that no gentleman would endorse. Not at all - I'm saying that you have omitted all of the calls so as not to single her out. I think you mean "*could* have omitted". And yes, I could have. Neither compromising your standards nor offending her. It would have compromised my standards. Surreal. No, diversionary, Jim. I have stated the issue many times. You choose to ignore it. No, I don't ignore. You ignore the other issues. I am amazed that a well educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above, given the behaviour that started it off in the first place. You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote something I didn't? Water under the bridge. Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes. So her wishes are more important than my standards? Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue. Nice attempt at diversion, Leo. Not at all :) - you are fixated on her callsign being the issue. Not fixated. It's one of the issues. There would be no problem if she chose an appropriate callsign. The real issue is the manner in which you chose to single her out! As she told you herself. That's *her* issue and *your* issue. But it's not the *only* issue. As you are aware. Instead, you choose to make a moralistic issue out of it. It is not. It's a moralistic issue when people tell me I'm not doing "the right thing" and that something is "not my place" to decide. It's a moralistic issue when I'm told what I *should* do in a post. My standards are *exactly* the issue. No. Then what's the problem? Your handling of the situation is the issue. As stated many times. Not your standards. I handled the situation in the only way my standards would allow. Therefore, my standards are an issue. I'm being told, again and again, that my choice not to put Kim's callsign in my posts is "wrong", and that my standards are of lesser importance than Kim's feelings. Incorrect - that is not what you are being "told" at all. Please reread my previous comments. I'm referring to other posts, too. As for your standards being more important, they are not - they are of equal importance. Hers and yours. Unless you are more important than kim, that is. Then Kim should consider my views equally with her own in choice of a callsign. She didn't. So let me ask the question straight out: Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience, or Kim's feelings? Both are equally important, Jim. Why? Unless you are somehow more important, as started above... How does that follow? You remember that, don't you, Jim? Bully-like behaviour, Jim? Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything? Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or threats at all in my actions or postings. Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup. Nope. Not from where I sit. Sorry to hear that, Jim. Do you want me to lie about it? I won't. Perhaps, then, there was no attempt to bully Kim. Thank you. I wouldn't have thought it possible. It isn't. (ahem) That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there. Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things others said he "must" do or "should" do? Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks, now did he? Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together, making salt when it was against the law.... Very annoying fellow at times. ...but totally unrelated to the issue. No, totally related to the issue. He was very considerate of other people's feelings. But that consideration did not keep him from being very very "annoying" when his standards/values/conscience required it. My standards require that I not put Kim's call in the list - because I think it's inappropriate. I'm sorry if someone finds that annoying. But I'm not going to change it. No problem - but you could have left them all out, couldn't you? Not without annoying others and myself. A compromise indeed - but not a compromise of your standards at all. It would be a compromise of my standards. And why should I compromise them? If I follow your suggested compromise to its logical conclusion, I should not use *anyone's* callsign in *any* post - so as not to hurt Kim's feelings. I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS. I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post. I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous two statements. No arguement with the first two points at all Jim - it is your omitting just one callsign (hers) from your post that is the issue. I have said repeatedly, as has Kim, that you should have used no one's call in your post if the situation bothered you that much. BINGO! You just told me what I should do. Now who's being moralistic? That would have solved the problem without compromising your standards, wouldn't it? No. Who would have a reason to complain about that? Anyone else who wanted their callsign included. She would have been treated equally to everyone else (her complaint), and her callsign would not have appeared in your post (your complaint). Is there a problem with this? Yes. See above. If you believe that her call is inappropriate, and you do not wish to use it in a post, those are your standards and are deserving of the respect of everyone. But everyone does not respect them. But, that is not the central issue of my posts to you - the above paragraph is. There are other issues, whether you choose to see them or not. Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. Not the issue. Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it? I don't - that is not the issue at all. Yes, it is. To me and others. Your standards do not allow you to use her callsign in a post. No problem there at all, Jim. Omitting just hers was unfair, though - that is the issue. It's only unfair by *your* standards and *Kim's* standars - which you are trying to force on me. That is the issue that I am discussing. Not you, though - you are trying to shift it to a position defensable by your standards. See above. Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree. So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser. That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread. Not true at all, Jim. I think it is. Your opinion. My perception - and that's the one that counts, remember? Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full version of this post: "....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun." An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim. Nobody is declaring a draw. A draw is when neither side thinks they won, or can win, and so the game ends. In this case, Kim thinks she won, and I think I won. Not a draw. Rhetorical, Jim - Accurate. ...perhaps a tie? Nope. A tie is when both sides agree that neither side won or lost. Not the case here. An interesting way to declare a tie, Jim. Not a tie. That's all that matters..... Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a callsign I think is inappropriate. Sidestepping the issue. Yes, you are. Not me. Nope. Not the issue. Exactly the issue. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really :) Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly. Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping of the main issue under discussion. Leo, you are avoiding the central issue: No. Not at all. Please reread my comments carefully! You are arguing a different issue. That's the issue you keep avoiding. Probaly because you know I'm right. Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience, or Kim's feelings? That's the central issue, right there. Nope. Not the issue at all, Jim. As stated many times. To me it's the central issue. Regarding which is more important, though - both. Sidestepping the issue. There was a way to handle this without compromising either. Sure - have Kim change her callsign to something appropriate. Or are you saying that you are more important, Jim? Does not follow. I expected better from the man who often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts. The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in a list. You mean using her name instead of her callsign. No. Not the issue, as you are aware (or should be?). Omitting just her call in the list is the issue. Just that one call - no others. Omitting others would single *them* out, by your logic. That was done because of my standards. Using her callsign in that list was inconsistent with my standard that it's inappropriate. So I didn't use it. As I have said before, no disrespect, insult, or singling out were intended. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to her. Period. You are saying that I should ignore my standards out of courtesy to Kim. That having her callsign included in the list, rather than her name, is more important than any consideration of *my* feelings or standards. That's the issue. Nope. Yep. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. Not by me. By you and others. Nope. The issue has been stated many times. By me. Say it right out, Leo. Tell me that I should ignore/hide/deny my standards of what is appropriate in deference to "courtesy" and Kim's feelings. Nope. Compromise was possible, without impacting your standards. Not any compromise that has been proposed here. Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? That's all I've been doing in these posts. Nope - you're facing up to a different issue. One that you can justify with your standards. Please reread my comments carefully. I did. And mine. - or shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are fooling no one but yourself, Jim. How am I fooling myself? I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS. I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post. I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous two statements. Nope. Nope. Nope. Yep. Yep. Yep. Not the issue at all. Are you aware of what you are telling me to do? Yup - deal with the issue at hand. Not the one that you keep falling back on. I'm not going to compromise my standards. Period. "It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and the artificial." - Mark Twain Yup. You want me to keep my standards private, and not act on them, because they aren't the same as yours. Well, that's just not going to happen. Nope. Please reread Mr. Twain's statement. I did. I'm not going to hide my standards. btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all? Guess because it's her choice, Jim. Then respect my choice of how to post as you respect her choice of callsign. I sure wouldn't want that call assigned to me, but Kim does. Her way of poking a finger in the eye of those who judge her by appearance alone, perhaps. Her own personal reasons, though. Sure. That does not make it appropriate to the ARS. And she has every right to have it - it's up to her. I don't think FCC should issue such calls. Nor should hams choose them. They do no good to the ARS. It wasn't the "right thing to do". Your argument is fixated on Kim's "right" to choose such a call, and ignores a ham's responsibility to the ARS. Just my opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com