"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Someone came up with a great
analogy today, and I don't know
why I've never thought of it
before. (snip)


Not a bad analogy. People see what they want to see in others. However, I
do still have doubts about Stephen King and his readers. :-)


Anyway, I liked the scenario...
that's my story and I'm sticking
to it... ;o


Well, as long as you don't sing those words, I'll accept that. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

The words Larry posts are a direct
quote from part of Riley Hollingsworth's
response to an email from me.


Sorry about that. I was under the impression that Hollingsworth had sent
the message to Larry. I read it once a long time ago, but wanted to read it
again.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"William" wrote


I understand that you would -knowingly- work a ham out of band.


Dear Little Billy Beeper,

Does Captain Code know you're working us here? (Go to
http://www.handiham.org/local/blind/beeper.txt for details.)

I will not go out of my band allocation to work anyone, but I will work
anyone with an amateur radio callsign who calls me inside my band
allocations.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

I hope that was meant to be funny. I laughed off my hind quarters.
DJM

"Daniel J. Morlan" wrote


I hope that was meant to be funny. I laughed off my hind quarters.


Yes, it is, but William (that's formal for "Billy Beeper") is seriously
humor impaired and full of himself.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke

I thought I answered this, but apparently not. I'll try again...

Leo wrote in message . ..
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.

That's a moral judgement on your part. You're declaring what should
and should not be an issue to other people. IOW, you're telling them
what to think and what their standards should be when you say it
shouldn't be an issue.

Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

My personal standards are shared by other people. I don't know
how many, but if there's even one other person who shares my
standards, then they're *not* "no one else's".

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.

Why not?

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?

I won't use it in my posts. I'm not legally required to, either.

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.

Then she needs to accept the consequences of that action.

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.

She and you know exactly why her call was omitted.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....

Why? It's the cause of the omission.

do you see where she might get that feeling?

Sure - she wants to be included in the list even though she
disregards the list's standards.

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. It would have been an
easy compromise to make, and woulld potentially have offended no one.

It would have offended me and anyone who agreed with my standards.

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.

That means everyone must suffer in order to avoid the possibility of
Kim's feelings being hurt.

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.

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.

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.)

You're saying her feelings are more important than my standards and my feelings.

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?

Are you sure they aren't?

Why should the people who chose appropriate callsigns not get them
listed in order to appease those who chose inappropriate ones?

(except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

Not at all.

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.

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. 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.

So you'd go through all that and wind up with the calls in the post because
some of us would complain.

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.

That's nice - but by doing so, you are validating her choice of
callsign. I won't do that.

I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.

My standards say that your compromise involves compromising my standards.

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 could solve it very easily by choosing an appropriate callsign.

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.

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.

I recall being told it was not *MY* place to judge. And I disagree.
It's my place to judge in terms of what I will and will not validate.

Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.

Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards

Tell it to those who used words like "prejudice" to describe
my standards.

- 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.

That's it - that's my point.


That's fine. And I disagree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Larry, I might agree with you on this issue, and I'd hate to take a
stance on something like this, because personally, I may not find it
that terribly important.

I am a huge proponent of each one acting their best, etc... My only
question is: Do you expect Kim to change her callsign? Especially
after posting what you did? She might have considered changing it if
the diplomacy had been there, but when you turn it into a war of
principles, it's not likely she'd freshen her callsign up a tad.
(Even though I'd like to see her do it, I wouldn't hold my breath.)

And she just may be a total sweetheart to boot. (I don't mean that
sexually at all...) You can't tell with just a name. I'm new here, so
I'll consider the value of my opinion limited, but I'd be more
interested in stopping "bad behavior" than I would be in my passion
and rhetoric admonishing it.

We don't disagree, necessarily, but I'll never show anything less than
civility to Kim, here, or on the air, if it ever comes to that.

Ironically, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone politely ask her to
change it.

DJM

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Do you still have the full text of that message from Hollingsworth, Larry?
If so, please post a copy so we can all see it. I know you posted it before,
but that was some time ago.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Axe and ye shall receive:

Subject: Riley sez Kim taking the ARS "One step closer to extinction"
From: ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
Date: 08 Jun 2000 14:37:47 GMT

In article 59B7203A07395FF0.50F2CC864D4ED7FE.54A4CB093D32584 ,
"Kim W5TIT" writes:


Probably more a thoughtful wish of the prefix I wish I'd been able to get.

Kim:

Huh? This was even harder to decipher than your usually indecipherable
writing. Anyone who has survived elementary school grammar should
know it's best not to use a word like "wish" more than once in a
sentence -- particularly if it can be used as either a noun or a verb.
This causes confusion. However, since confusion seems to be your
normal state, I guess you think you can get away with it!

[THIS IS THE PART WHERE KIM QUOTES THE PART OF RILEY'S
E-MAIL WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD:]


Speaking of callsigns, here's Riley's response after I wrote and told him I
was sorry for bothering him, since the FCC had already spoken on callsigns
at the Dayton Hamfest (the rest of the email is also with it):

While that's true, just because a person has a right to do something doesn't
mean it's right to do it on every occasion. While the call sign may fit the
constitution, for every instance where a parent or uncle or grandparent
doesn't want a young person to get involved in Ham Radio because of
something they hear on the bands, then you have taken the ARS one step
closer to extinction. Then we can sit around and debate what happened to
all those Amateur frequencies that industry bought at auction---debating, of
course, on the internet and cellular because that'll be all we have left.
The first amendment will still be alive and well, just as it is now, tho, if
that's any consolation.

Interesting. Sooo, Kim -- are you going to change your call sign
voluntarily, or are you going to, as Riley said, continue to take the ARS
"one step closer to extinction?" Think about it!

Years ago, I would have fought tooth and nail to preserve every single
kiloHertz of ham radio spectrum. However, because of the proliferation of
so-called "hams" like you, Kim, I now support the concept of wholesale
re-allocation of amateur radio spectrum to commercial broadcasting
and utility communications services which can make much more
productive, profitable, and socially beneficial use of it! As hams, we've
blown it -- big time -- and you, your attitude, and your callsign are the
best and most readily available example of every bad thing ham radio
has become!

Sooo -- enjoy your callsign. The FCC won't force you to change it --
that is something that can only come from you -- should you decide
to become a Real Ham and stop giving the rest of us a bad image!
I have complete confidence that you can change if you want to -- but
the action to do so must come out of your decision to do what's
right for people other than yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Oh, I don't know that he had any correspondence with the FCC; in fact I
highly doubt it. The Riley Hollingsworth email was a direct response from
him to me, and Larry has treasured it ever since

I picture him as having it laminated and taped to his dashboard.

:-)

LHA / WMD

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Dwight, that's all too common in
computer-modem "communications,"
just as it is with morse code beeping
on ham band ragchews.

No real clues on a person, no human
data input, just a lot of imagination and
too much concentration on the writer
in a public forum. Those with an
agenda, a hatred of something/somebody,
living in a quasi-fantasyland, brainwashed
into a different reality, are all into their
own "reality of sight and sound," just like
a Twilight Zone.

To those too caught up in the unreality
don't have a hobby of ham radio anymore,
they have a Lifestyle and Belief. Any
puncturing of that fantasy will send them
off into paroxysms of rage, offense at
imagined slights, and the usual bigot's
demands of What is Right Should Be
Right. (snip)

Well said, Len. I often find it amazing to read some of the messages here
after being distracted from the newsgroup for a few days. The attitudes and
realities here seem far out of touch with the realities of the world.

Dwight, that's what I meant about the "fantasyland." With so few
clues on another person (especially with morse beeping), it's a
wonderful opportunity to imagine all sorts of things about the
other radio operator. :-)

Unfortunately, too many apply the same fantasy-imaginary things
to a computer screen.

Blend all of that in with: (1) A NEED to belong...to something...to
anything; (2) A need to VENT daily frustrations, take them out on
another who cannot possibly harm the venter...and you've got the
recipe for Instant Flame War. :-)

The League has constantly self-promoted itself and many have
allowed that self-promotion to brainwash them into thinking they
are this tremendous asset to the nation, are gifted radio operators
who stand ready to jump into action to save something whenever
called, and are better than ordinary people. Combined with an
honest-to-gosh Federal Certificate (suitable for framing) and they
start taking themselves sooooo seriously. They slip off reality and
enter the Twilight Zone of their imagination.

Amateur radio is a fun hobby, a recreational activity for personal
pleasure...but...a few NEED the status symbolism, the Titles,
all the pretty adornments to show off to others...instead of doing
an enjoyable thing with radio. As a result the U.S. got this
"incentive system" of professional-like rank-status (classes of
licenses) in an avocational amateur endeavor which is not a guild
or union or anything else but a hobby. Rank-status-privilege are
the thing, not the radio communication.

The League now wants to revisit all of that with Their Plan, complete
with emotional loading of the "Novice" name for "entrants." Gee suss,
are those 15 old men so out of touch with reality that radio is still
"new" or "mysterious" to the general population? Don't they under-
stand that radio is in widespread use in other radio services and that
there are hundreds of thousands of non-amateurs who have used
radio for years? Weird, wired apprentice-journeyman-master in a
still in a HOBBY activity!

It's like the Twilight Zone on a bad hair day...

U.S. amateur radio seems to be another
center for national misogyny. It is a hobby
activity engaged in largely by white males.

I've thought about that many times and don't really see a problem with it.
As long as there isn't a widespread effort to intentionally exclude, not
everything in this world has to be all inclusive (to each his own). While
some will obviously always want to exclude, it isn't more commonplace in
Amateur Radio than elsewhere.

I disagree but won't press the point.

Just think of before 1960 the Civil Rights Laws. The atmosphere
might refresh the memory. Look at the pictures of hams in the
US shown in the ham publications. Check out their legal names.

The various ARCs encourage members "like them" which means
white male adults. Women are categorized as "special," not quite
on par with the men; wives are always "EX-young-ladies" regardless
of their real age. In many places it is like the 1930s and 1920s in
attitudes. Sometimes with members' radio smarts to match...even
if they've memorized every single radio ad in QST for the last 20
years.

But, all must march to the same drumbeep, close ranks and cheer
the leadership. Keep those 1930s and 1920s feelings alive. Ham
radio is a SERVICE and every newbie (to hamming, not radio) has
to "learn their place" or the "NCOs" will have them "get down and
give them twenty." Lifestylers. Narrowed in focus almost to
tunnel vision.

It's not completely like that, of course...but there are just enough of
the Lifestylers to allow them to force an eliteness de facto if not
de jure. They don't see it even when looking in a mirror. :-)

LHA / WMD

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.


I (W5TIT) have an appropriate callsign (W5TIT). The word "tit" (not the
callsign W5TIT) is not (the word tit) appropriate for use on the amateur
radio bands (but the callsign W5TIT is). And, the word "tit" is *not* used
on the amateur radio bands. Well, not that I (W5TIT) know of anyway. The
callsign W5TIT is used on the amateur radio bands and is quite an
appropriate callsign (W5TIT that is).

How can I (W5TIT) be more appropriate than that?

Kim W5TIT

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:48:03 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.


I (W5TIT) have an appropriate callsign (W5TIT). The word "tit" (not the
callsign W5TIT) is not (the word tit) appropriate for use on the amateur
radio bands (but the callsign W5TIT is). And, the word "tit" is *not* used
on the amateur radio bands. Well, not that I (W5TIT) know of anyway. The
callsign W5TIT is used on the amateur radio bands and is quite an
appropriate callsign (W5TIT that is).

How can I (W5TIT) be more appropriate than that?

Fully agreed, Kim.

Kim W5TIT

73, Leo