"N2EY" wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim,

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

Dave K8MN

"N2EY" wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
Kim: June 1, 2008

Kim W5TIT wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
Kim: June 1, 2008

Kim W5TIT wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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

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

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

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

You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The
touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is
another.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
Kim: June 1, 2008

Kim W5TIT wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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

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

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

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

You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The
touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is
another.

Dave K8MN

I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know
why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any
of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their
call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with
no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant.

You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say
you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you? As for the
lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be
able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no comment?
If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by
saying nothing.

Alun, N3KIP

"Dave Heil" wrote:

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


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


No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
correctness by those people.


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


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dave Heil" wrote


Why do you persist in changing Jim's posts and re-posting with no
indication that you're changing them?


Because she feels like it. I don't think she needs a reason beyond that.

Jim is apparently trying to make a point about Kim's call sign, which he and
many of us think borders on 'tacky'. That's his right.

Kim is apparently trying to make a point about Jim. That's her right.

Never mind that they both remind me of the 'church lady', and I think that
they and you are acting like sanctimonious twits. That's my right.

YMMV. That's your right.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
Kim: June 1, 2008


Kim W5TIT wrote:

(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
W5TIT: June 1, 2008


"Dave Heil" wrote:

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



I think Kim's complaint is valid.

If Jim does not want to use Kim's callsign, he doesn't have to.I don't
have a problem with it, but some people do. Even so, if she wishes to
change the post, she should not put it in as if Jim posted it.



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

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

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

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


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



No, just civil, polite, manners, Dave. My mother wasn't thinking of
political correctness when she taught me to try to respect others, even if
they may not deserve it. Sadly, too many people today consider polite
manners to be an unwelcomed human attribute, now described as political
correctness by those people.



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



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


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

- Mike KB3EIA

Alun wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
Kim: June 1, 2008

Kim W5TIT wrote:
(snip)
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

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

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

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

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

You'll note that I used "further reflect on your character". The
touching up of another's post is one issue. The choice of calls is
another.

Dave K8MN

I don't think you can really separate them in this instance. We all know
why Jim doesn't want to use her call, but at the same time I doubt if any
of us would be pleased to appear on a list where everyone else had their
call listed but we didn't. The obvious implication is that the person with
no call is not a ham, even though we know that's not what Jim meant.

You might not choose to have a call like Kim's, but can you honestly say
you wouldn't correct someone's post if they did this to you?

I might not have chosen a call like Kim's? I flat out didn't choose a
call like Kim's. I can honestly say that I would not change the post of
another to make it appear that the original poster had written something
different than what was originally posted.

As for the
lack of an accompanying comment, have you considered that she might not be able to think of anything that wouldn't actually be worse than no
comment?

I have no doubt at all that anything Kim would have written would have
been worse than no comment.

If she can't think of anything good to say, she may be being polite by
saying nothing.

I've not known Kim to be bound by politeness.

Dave K8MN