|
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
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. Or, "I have given some thought to my choice of working Frenchmen out of band on 6M, and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual." Dave, do you recognize yourself in this alternative scenario? |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: I am aware that you preceive it that way. Are you aware that no disrespect was intended? No. Unfortunately, the Gutenberg press doesn't lend itself to the full range of human vocal expression and we often infer emotion based upon prior typed exchanges with our victims. Mistakes in interpretation are made daily, yet are unambiguous when the typist provides line after line of all CAPS, excessive exclamation points (!!!), and multiple lines of "bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha" maniacal laughter. "Bend Over" is another good clue that your on-line buddy has seen too many reruns of Deliverance and wishes you ill will. |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Kim W5TIT wrote: 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 If you were to tell me that you prayed for me, I would thank you. But I would wonder if God listened to smug prayers. |
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. Now there's a smug remark. 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. And you yours 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. Similarly, you weren't being courteous to other Tanzanian amateurs by working Frenchmen out of band on 6M when you held a Tanzanian call, and subsequently stating that you would continue to do so because you were within your authorization. You give Tanzanian amateurs a bad name. Meanwhile you state you would somehow manage to tune past a legally issued American callsign, apparently in preference of out of band Frenchmen on 6M. 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 So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those you've exhibited here and on the air? It seems that you've set yourself up here and on the air to defend bad taste. |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
It's hard for you to get your "point" across when you still don't understand what you did. Dave K8MN Kind of like working Frenchmen out of band on 6M, huh? |
"Dave Heil" wrote:
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 (snip) Vulgar is very much in the eyes of the beholder, dependant on how the word is used and who uses it. But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar, especially in an innocuous radio callsign. Would you be so offended if it had been issued by the FCC at random? Would you be so offended if it had been selected by a man? In the end, it appears to me that most are complaining simply because a woman selected a callsign which highlights a unique aspect of womanhood. Perhaps these guys are jealous that woman have those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs" and they don't. Tit envy? 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. I wouldn't even attempt to tell my wife, mother, or adult daughter, which callsign to select for themselves. All of these women clearly have enough intelligence to select the callsign they want, whatever it might be. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Leo" wrote in message
... On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil 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. :) Hmmmm, never thought of it that way, Leo, but your observation comes true. I can't tell you how many times I have been given "oh jeeze" looks from women who think I absolutely deliberately grew these things to their size! I guess I've never paid that much attention to it; it's the equivalent of "blaming" someone for being born any other way. :) Kim W5TIT |
"Brian" wrote in message
om... Dave Heil wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: 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 If you were to tell me that you prayed for me, I would thank you. But I would wonder if God listened to smug prayers. Now, I like that response, and much more to the point, Brian! And, I don't think it'd be much wonder at all, though ;) Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "Dave Heil" wrote: 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 (snip) Vulgar is very much in the eyes of the beholder, dependant on how the word is used and who uses it. But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar, especially in an innocuous radio callsign. Would you be so offended if it had been issued by the FCC at random? Would you be so offended if it had been selected by a man? In the end, it appears to me that most are complaining simply because a woman selected a callsign which highlights a unique aspect of womanhood. Perhaps these guys are jealous that woman have those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs" and they don't. Tit envy? 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. I wouldn't even attempt to tell my wife, mother, or adult daughter, which callsign to select for themselves. All of these women clearly have enough intelligence to select the callsign they want, whatever it might be. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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 been chosen for any number of reasons: I bring light to the man over in Florida (K2TIT) who had that callsign as a commemoration to the TET offensive and, when he was considering a call, K2TET had been taken/issued (I don't remember which Michael told me). Anyway, I openly and honestly told the story (yeah, Dave, the earlier and the later version) of how my callsign came to be and, *that* is what has determined the approach to my callsign--nothing more! *Not* the callsign. So, the moral of this story is that, as long as one keeps quiet about their reasons for doing something, it must remain unquestionable to those in this newsgroup who now--simply because of a story and nothing more--find themselves high and mighty (over a--good grief--ham radio callsign!). Oh wow, I just looked the K2TIT callsign up (to try and confirm that Michael was that guy's name, but I think it was)--and it's been two years since he's given it up! Hmmmm, now I could get my preferred callsign--I'd wanted the 'K' call, not 'W'. 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. ;) Kim W5TIT |
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:46:22 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil 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. :) Hmmmm, never thought of it that way, Leo, but your observation comes true. I can't tell you how many times I have been given "oh jeeze" looks from women who think I absolutely deliberately grew these things to their size! I guess I've never paid that much attention to it; it's the equivalent of "blaming" someone for being born any other way. :) Yup, people do have a natural tendency to get hung up on physical characteristics. I've heard that from a couple of friends in the same - um - situation...guys have trouble looking you in the eye, and the other women (and some guys..) become insecure. Dumb and insensitive, but it seems to be human nature. You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in conversation. Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana :) ) and see if they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking about the day before...... That oughta learn 'em! Kim W5TIT 73, Leo |
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. Surreal. As you are aware. I'm not aware of any ungentlemanly behavior on my part. I am aware of some ungentlemanly behavior on the part of others, though. 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. My standards are *exactly* the 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. So let me ask the question straight out: Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience, or Kim's feelings? 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. 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. As you are aware. 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. 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. Yet you give no examples. Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. Not the issue. Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it? You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! Not according to Kim. According to you - read your own post! Yes, according to me. Not according to Kim. That's what I wrote. As you are aware. ;-) 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. 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. 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. 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: Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience, or Kim's feelings? That's the central issue, right there. 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. 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. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. Not by me. By you and others. 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. Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? That's all I've been doing in these posts. - 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. Are you aware of what you are telling me to do? "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. btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. 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. Surreal. As you are aware. I'm not aware of any ungentlemanly behavior on my part. I am aware of some ungentlemanly behavior on the part of others, though. 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. My standards are *exactly* the 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. So let me ask the question straight out: Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience, or Kim's feelings? 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. 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. As you are aware. 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. 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. Yet you give no examples. Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. Not the issue. Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it? You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! Not according to Kim. According to you - read your own post! Yes, according to me. Not according to Kim. That's what I wrote. As you are aware. ;-) 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. 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. 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. 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: Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience, or Kim's feelings? That's the central issue, right there. 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. 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. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. Not by me. By you and others. 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. Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? That's all I've been doing in these posts. - 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. Are you aware of what you are telling me to do? "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. btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks, Alex, for taking the time to look all of these up! I had no idea how many sly folks there were in this hobby! I wonder if Riley has seen some of these.....'W5TIT' is pretty tame by comparison to N0BRA or N0SEX . (Those ones DO send a pretty clear message all by themselves :) ) 73, Leo ....who almost blew a gasket when he read this! LOL On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:22:48 GMT, 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 |
"Alex Flinsch" wrote 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. And K0FC has N0OKY in the house. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
....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 On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:01:02 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: "Alex Flinsch" wrote 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. And K0FC has N0OKY in the house. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Leo wrote in message . ..
ROTFLMAO! Thanks, Alex, for taking the time to look all of these up! I had no idea how many sly folks there were in this hobby! I wonder if Riley has seen some of these.....'W5TIT' is pretty tame by comparison to N0BRA or N0SEX . (Those ones DO send a pretty clear message all by themselves :) ) 73, Leo ...who almost blew a gasket when he read this! LOL On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:22:48 GMT, 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 I wonder how many have SWR and IMD. I'll bet some aren't even hams, but SWLers. |
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 "Alex Flinsch" wrote in message ... 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 |
"Leo" wrote in message
... Jim, For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the core "issue" that began our discourse. Perhaps I haven't stated it clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become clouded. 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. No issue there - that is entirely your right. I also understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts. 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. 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? It's much easier for the entire issue, to do what I have done. I requested that Jim refrain from having my name in the list. Jim has said he'll do that. The unfortunate thing is that I suppose I'll have to quit responding to his posts also, if I am to uphold to my *own* set of standards--because I think it is totally wrong for him to remove my callsign from an original post of mine. It is most unfortunate that his ambition to be "correct" is stronger than his ambition to dialogue. That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim. Your rights and standards are not at question here. 73, Leo Kim W5TIT |
"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 |
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. Your personal standards are your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed? 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. 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? 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. 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. Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....do you see where she might get that feeling? 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... :) ) In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only immediately after Kim's original complaint. 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. 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. I prefer compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but finding a way to achieve a balance. 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. 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. 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 - 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. 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: remainder of post snipped - in the hope that the above covers the outstanding issues well enough. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
|
|
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "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. Herr Robust is without imperfection in that regard... LHA / WMD |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: 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. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you didn't capitalize the "we" fearsome leader! You speak for the amateur community. Always. Even if the majority of them do not agree with you... 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 [expletive deleted] Formerly Known As Reverend Jim is acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner in this matter. So are you. Must be that U.S. Amateur Extra Special Dispensation thing. 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. How does all that interfere with your life, fearless leader? Are you on some evangelical crusade to rid the world of horrible filthy disgusting language that You find offensive in an unmoderated forum? Of course you are...throwing your weight around (lots of it)...making like a control freak on a binge. Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a *chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval. There shall be NO filthy offensive deragatory words in olde-tyme hamme raddio sayeth the fearless leader. May all who mention even remotely related to s*x rot in cb hell? 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. Leo's morals are a LOT better than the ones you exhibit in here. A fantastic betterment of the human condition, Herr Robust, much better than the prussian arrogance of "do like you say." Wonderful example of olde-tyme hamme raddio you present, Herr Robust. Makes everyone lust (oops, said an [expletive deleted]) to learn morse code and be a hamme, right? Then they, too, can be just like You. LHA / WMD |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: 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)? Someone shook your chains? Are you the Moderator in here? (no, but you like to think so...) Are you the Supreme Court (or Courtesan) of ham radio? (no, but you act like it...) Morse code is the heart and soul of all olde-tyme Hamme raddio amateurs. The olde-tyme hamme raddio peoples insist on morse code testing forever and ever, amen. What has morse code testing regulations to do with Herr Robust? Not a single d**n thing. Peas be unto you, whirled leader. LHA / WMD |
In article , Leo
writes: On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: 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? No. 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. Thank you! 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 wasn't the point - I said specifically that you are not the one who gets to make that decision. Oh, but the Amateur Formerly Known as Reverend Jim IS ham radio, therefore he decides what is applicable and what is not. [it's either that is be caught in a word blizzard of long, long, long postings or a Sermon On The Antenna Mount] That role belongs to the regulatory authorities. And to all of us hams. No - we can recommend and advise, but the regulatory authorities make the decision. Not us. He IS U.S. ham radio. He's said so hisself. :-) 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. Absolutely. But not the point. The issue is between you and the FCC. They issued it - they can recall it if it's "inappropriate". He IS U.S. ham radio. Said so. 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. Incorrect. Not at all. That isn't the issue. I said omitting just one callsign from your post was wrong. No one denies your right to not use it - but you could have omitted all of them, to level the field. What standards woul that have compromised, Jim?. The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim sets the standards. He does not make mistakes. 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! Nope - just omitting call one out of a group was wrong. Disrespectful, in fact - or at least perceived that way. You could have left all of the calls out - then it wouldn't be a problem, would it? Cannot be! 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. Nope - not at all. 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! Not just mine - as you are aware. [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. Sidestepping the issue. Not Him! :-) But, no matter who she was, would you say it in front of a crowd of people? Or discreetly? 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). Different scenario entirely. Parental control gives you the right to do so. But, would you say it in front of a crowd of people? Or discreetly? Some opinions are best kept to one's self :) And some are best expressed rather than repressed. Not in a public forum, Jim. 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. Nope - it is not the issue. The point was not that you refused to use it - simply that you singled her out in a list of other calls. Intentionally and repeatedly. Under vows of ham priesthood He may not make use of [expletive deleted] words. No matter. He IS U.S. ham radio. 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. Really? Didn't look that way. Say, didn't you agree with Kim that "perception is everything"? Of course not - your standards are too high for that......aren't they? Yep. Of course! :) 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? Sidestepping the issue. And potentially suicidal :) Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is everything! As you are aware. Yet yelling both phrases is *legal* - although not always advisable or appropriate. Sidestepping the issue. And in the context of amateur radio callsigns, I think Kim's choice of callsign is inadvisable and inappropriate. Your own logic proves it. Sidestepping the issue. 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. I see. So it's not just the callsign that you find inappropriate, but the owner and other issues? Please elaborate! 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. Do you not also find it objectionable? Or are you playing semantics again? :) Therefore, it's not censorship. Disagree - see above! Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem) The phrase was "self-serving rhetoric", not just the word "rhetoric". AHEM. You mean it isn't? :) Seems to be! 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? Do they? 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. Actually, the upholding of standards...but this isn't about standards, Jim. It's about singling someone out intentionally. And disrespectfully. 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. Avoiding the question. 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. Your actions speak differently. "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. True enough. Not directly related to this one single solitary isssue that we're discussing here, though, is it? Nope. 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. A puzzling response, Jim - I'm an Option 1 kind of guy myself. How about you? A bit 2, a little 3 maybe.... 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". One last sidestep for the road, Jim? Honesty and openness isn't what your actions were about, now were they? :) Be honest. And do try to stick to the facts! Must be an Arthur Murray dropout with all the side steps being practiced. He IS U.S. ham radio. One may not disagree with Him. U.S. Amateur Extras do not make mistakes. They have Special Dispensation for whatever they do. LHA / WMD |
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. That is SO exceptional! :-) LHA / WMD |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "KØHB" wrote in message ink.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. In an effort to be convivial, double-D sounds off like she has a pair! LHA / WMD |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... 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/ I never even realized your call was a vanity call, Dwight. And, neat that you came up with something creative! Kim W5TIT |
Leo wrote:
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. Yes, that looks like your mode: instant expert; proposals that we accept what we find in bad taste. Your condolences aren't needed. 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? :) Yes, I do. You must not think so as you "expected better" than for him to do so. 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. :) *Wink* and *chuckle* on your part noted. 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. So the Mark Twain quote isn't an accurate assessment of humankind? Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com