Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim. That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things from thin air is usual and status quo for him. Don't be so quick to jump on a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all. For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction. However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars in some display of dislike for me--then go for it. Kim W5TIT "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
writes:
Mike, how in the [expletive deleted] is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that actually sent it? The problem is that you *didn't* alter the number of symbols at the beginning of the line, so it looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's no in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above. The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim. Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without changing the symbols is misattribution and one of the very few things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers simply tell what the number of symbols means. Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd want to know. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
writes: Mike, how in the [expletive deleted] is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that actually sent it? The problem is that you *didn't* alter the number of symbols at the beginning of the line, so it looks like I wrote something that I didn't. That's why there's no in front of the "[expletive deleted]" part that I wrote above. The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim. Simply going in and changing what someone else wrote without changing the symbols is misattribution and one of the very few things that are almost universally condemned on Usenet. Headers simply tell what the number of symbols means. Kind of like: In Unix style commenting, a "" is placed before each line of quoted text. Add your new text below the relevant quote. from http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/netiquette.html Of course it was all probably just a small mistake but I thought you'd want to know. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kim W5TIT wrote: Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim. You could always past it as a quote. That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things from thin air is usual and status quo for him. Don't be so quick to jump on a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all. I'm not on any Dave Heil bandwagon. That I agree with him in this case means only that I agree with him in this case. For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the opinion that it can be done. I would have submitted the post as a quote, and perhaps with a "ahem - My callsign is W5TIT in case you forgot, Jim!" You would have made your point most eloquently in that case. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction. Who's angry? Jim has the right to be skittish about your callsign. You have the right to call him on it. I'm not going to presume to tell you how to make your posts, but I'll tell you how I would have reacted in the same circumstances. However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars in some display of dislike for me--then go for it. Who dislikes you? Not me. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using a Pool Cage As an Antenna? | Antenna | |||
Use a Pool Cage As An Antenna? | Antenna | |||
From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment |