|
"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. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Just do it till you need glasses, Hans. I'm already wearing tri-focals. dit dit, de Hans, K0HB |
|
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "Kim W5TIT" wrote I thought I was seeing Hans with something other than a gorilla thumping message. I never thump my gorilla. My dad said I'd go blind if I did. Quit the monkey business in public... LHA / WMD |
|
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: (snip) But you have no negative comments for the person who does it. Negative comments had already been posted by others. I don't kick people when they're already laying on the ground from the blows of others. I don't see anyone in that condition... Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to the ARS. Do you think all possible callsigns are appropriate, Dwight? Beyond the law, I don't think it is my mission in life to decide what is appropriate for others. If I have a problem with the laws (the callsigns allowed by the FCC), then my fight is with the lawmakers (the FCC). Whatever the case, I don't take it upon myself to engage in an ongoing campaign against those who make choices different then my own. Kim is aware of my opinion about her callsign (I wouldn't have chosen it myself). Beyond that, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. If I felt this is a real problem, I'd take up the issue of callsigns with the FCC. You very neatly avoided the question. You have had no problem when others have used insulting names rather than callsigns to refer to me, (snip) I've never seen anyone use insulting names to refer to you. Then you must have killfiled Len Anderson and Brian Burke a long time ago. Which is probably a very smart thing to do. ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote Just do it till you need glasses, Hans. I'm already wearing tri-focals. dit dit, de Hans, K0HB I find the progressive lenses much more comfortable and useful myself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... [snip] 'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate, WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?! The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like I don't have a callsign? At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone thinks...UNTIL they come up like this... Kim W5TIT I pay attention to every single attribute and immediately noticed the difference in both posts. I elected not to get into the debate and kept my opinions to myself. However since you seem to think people ignore the attributes, I decided I must repond to dispel that notion. And as far as I'm concerned, deliberately making the attribute appear to be something other than it was happens to be wrong. Making errors in keeping attributes in long threads happens and is excusable. Choosing to make an attribute appear something else is not excusable. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So in the end, knowing the Code at 20 or even 35 WPM really doesn't guarantee good character. Thanks for the lesson in ethics, Jim. 73, Brian |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... Just a mention before I take off for the office: Maybe you don't feel boxed...but you sure were getting defensive and unexpectedly insulted--at least it looked that way to me in this post! Kim [inappropriate callsign deleted] 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. Ummmmm, that's quite standard for this newsgroup. I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards rather than my own. Not at all. I didn't see that. Your angst was for the fact that someone changed attributes in a post. For that, you are wrong; as I am. It doesn't matter *why* the posts are getting changed; that part of the debate was mere distraction. Fact still remains that you bitched at me for something you, yourself, have been doing. I even got you to admit something good about K3LT. There's something good in everything...and I do mean everything. For each and every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Most people take that to mean good=good and bad=bad. It can also, and more often, mean good=bad and bad=good. And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of inappropriate words. Typical behavior for you. Although, the implication of you being a leg man--and stating so in such a way as to imply something sexual about it, also defeats your whole stance of removing inappropriate things from posts you take part in. But, you can be contradictory--that's OK. So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY As I said, you've been changing my original posts for over a year now (by deleting my callsign from them--by the way, that was just pointed out to me by someone else a bit of time ago--I've been "watching" since) so if you want to get offended, upset, etc., about changing posts then be upset at yourself first. Whether by changing attributes or deleting things from original posts--both a) are supposedly against standard conventions of newsgroups/Usenet and, b) both could be strewn to be disrespectful, deceitful, inappropriate, incorrect, and causation for a long debate. You began the behavior before me, I trumped it. As I said, you may not "feel" boxed. However, you have been just uncharacteristic enough in several examples that I am quite sure you were, in some way, caught up in being very defensive over something you did. I remain with a feeling of debate victory... However, there is something rather interesting about the thread the last few days: it's obviously had Hans occupied. Kim W-5-T-I-T |
"Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: I've never seen anyone use insulting names to refer to you. Surely you jest Dwight!! No, I'm not. Contrary to what some may think, I don't follow each of the discussions here. I trash about half the threads without even a glance. A good chunk of the remaining threads get trashed after I've read only one or two messages to see if I'm at all interested. And, finally, of the remaining threads, I certainly don't read all messages. The only name I've seen recently relating to Jim is Len's "Rev. Jim," and I'd hardly call that a great insult. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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 |
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. 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. 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. I wouldn't have thought it possible. It isn't. 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? So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Over 21 wrote:
...it might have been a Preview of Coming Attractions advertising a new Sermon on the Antenna Mount by Rev. Jim. :-) Hans is right. A bunch of sanctimonious Church Ladies trying to manufacture disputes with their production lines all broken down. What have your comments to do with elimination of morse testing in the Amateur Radio Service (your only aim here)? Dave K8MN |
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 :) 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. 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. 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? So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you frequently speak have gotten to. That's all. You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly? You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! That's all that matters..... 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really :) 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... 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 Live with it, Dave, live with it... Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... 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 Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays? Kim W5TIT |
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? 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? 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. 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. So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you frequently speak have gotten to. That's all. You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly? Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly? Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! Not according to Kim. 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. That's all that matters..... Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a callsign I think is inappropriate. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really :) Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dave Heil" wrote:
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. (snip) So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something? Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave? Regardless, lets get to the basics of this issue. What is wrong with the word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as a noun meaning "either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman." Seem rather innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like most women, has those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs." So why would so many be offended by her very mention of that fact? It's not like she's refering to the sexual organs or something. 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. (snip) So you're comparing a woman's breasts to the filthy or offensive language on television? Isn't that somewhat prudish, Dave? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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. As you are aware. 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. 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. 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. As you are aware. So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you frequently speak have gotten to. That's all. You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly? Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly? Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed. Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. Not the issue. As you are aware. You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! Not according to Kim. According to you - read your own post! 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. 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. 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. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really :) Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly. 73 de Jim, N2EY 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. 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. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are fooling no one but yourself, Jim. "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 73, Leo |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: 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. (snip) So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something? Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave? Jim has every "right" not to use Kim's callsign whether she does something or not. Kim has no power to force him to use her callsign or make him give approval to her choice. Regardless, lets get to the basics of this issue. What is wrong with the word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as a noun meaning "either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman." Seem rather innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like most women, has those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs." So why would so many be offended by her very mention of that fact? It's not like she's refering to the sexual organs or something. Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight. The term is vulgar slang and you have, I'm sure, seen Kim's most recent explanation for having chosen her call. Kim's choice is simply another of her several ways of thumbing her nose at the world. Maybe you're the kind of fellow who would be proud to have his wife, mother or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not. 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. (snip) So you're comparing a woman's breasts to the filthy or offensive language on television? Isn't that somewhat prudish, Dave? No, Dwight. I'm comparing tasteless and tacky with tasteless and tacky. Dave K8MN |
Leo wrote:
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. ....and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward something which we find in poor taste. I expected better from the man who often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts. Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter. The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of calls. Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a *chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval. Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are fooling no one but yourself, Jim. "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 So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to defend bad taste. Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... 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? Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays? Sure it has, Kim. Why should I pray for you if you're not even going to tackle it yourself? After all, If I prayed for you and told you so, you'd simply think I was someone with that "certain tone of voice". Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... 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 Live with it, Dave, live with it... I have no problem living with it, Kim. After all, it was a factual account of what took place. I even provided two very good illustrations for your benefit. As to the reality that you still don't seem to get it, I can live with that too. Dave K8MN |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
I just applied their logic to the message at hand. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, the PCTA double standard defies logic. |
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: Leo wrote: 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. ...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward something which we find in poor taste. Not at all - you have missed the point entirely. My condolences. I expected better from the man who often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts. Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter. You think? :) The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of calls. And two wrongs somehow make a right? Of course she singled herself out with that call. So what? Does that make her a "bad person", somehow unfit for common courtesy, Dave? Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a *chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval. Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave - it's a fact of life. :) Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are fooling no one but yourself, Jim. "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 So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to defend bad taste. Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the others. Plain and simple. Dave K8MN 73, Leo |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "Dave Heil" wrote: 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. (snip) So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something? Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave? ROFLMAO!! Know what it sounds like to me? Sounds like Dave has an agenda. The dialogue on this thread that has just been winding down the past couple of days has less to do with my callsign than it did with overall practices in newsgroups. Yet, Dave persists in defending the topic from the angle of it having had more to do with my callsign! He's managing to achieve nothing but tripping over his own self. Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Actually, you still don't understand what you did. Jim did not change what you wrote. His actions/comments were clearly his. You changed an attribution. Jim did not. And, you're still pontificating, Dave. How many times have I clearly stated: I know what I did, I know what I did trumped what Jim did (i.e., had greater impact on everyone), and I'll state now I don't think I'd change a thing about doing it--three ways--again! To me, attributes, or deleting things such as signatures and things from tracking mechanisms, are equal. Got it? No difference in either action to be determined as "wrong." Each is an insult, each is astray from standard conventions of newsgroup submissions, and each have the same potential to mislead, or at least misdirect, the readers of that post. IS NOT Jim showing the same disrespect for Kim in this case as he shows for Kim in his posts where he does not type her callsign? I don't think the justification for the action needs to be included in the dialogue. As I stated in another post, regardless of reason, *both* are wrong. I refuse to continue to get wrapped up in this being about my callsign--it is not. Therefore IT FOLLOWS that Jim MUST *always* make *full* attributes to Kim exactly as she typed her post, with no deletions to content that he finds objectionable. Any less would be disrepectful. Good luck with this one. Luck has nothing to do with it. Jim sees it quite differently, and I see it that he does just as he's accused me of doing. No, he hasn't. I presented you with two illustrative example of what you did. Jim did not do the same as you did at all. You fall way short, Dave, of being able to *present* anything. But, to me, I got my point across and the posts get too long to continue the discussion ;) It's hard for you to get your "point" across when you still don't understand what you did. Dave K8MN Do you practice being an asshole, Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it. Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Leo wrote: 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. ...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward something which we find in poor taste. I expected better from the man who often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts. Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter. The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of calls. Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a *chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval. Oh puhleeze, Dave. Live with the fallout!?! It's an amateur radio callsign! Not a GD BOD decision! ROFLMAO!!! Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are fooling no one but yourself, Jim. "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 So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to defend bad taste. Dave K8MN Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... I don't recall anyone saying anything about your call being "sexual". I remember "tasteless", "tacky" and "inappropriate" being used. I recall seeing the word "vulgar". Your latest reason for choosing your call pretty much says it all. Ummmm, do you change bottles of liquor at least once in a while, Dave? My "latest reason" for choosing my callsign is the same as the "earlier reasons." Get a grip, Dave...it'll be much more enjoyable. Dare. Dare to live a little. Kim W5TIT |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... 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? Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays? Sure it has, Kim. Why should I pray for you if you're not even going to tackle it yourself? After all, If I prayed for you and told you so, you'd simply think I was someone with that "certain tone of voice". Dave K8MN Praying is of little significance to me, in communing with God, Dave. But, you're so shallow, I'm quite sure you are completely incapable of understanding anything like that. Oh, and please, don't pray for me. Most people who say things like that are saying it to be vindictive---OH, that's right!!! You are being vindictive! Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com