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

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

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 -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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

Mike...the quote-formatting standard originated on ARPANET
when USENET began there. Old stuff. Been there, done that.

It is a common-use standard, not a legal, lawful one.

5 minutes in the penalty box just because...

LHA

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 -

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration:

I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking the time to gather the facts.

Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you
wrote it.

That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him.

It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They
exist. They can't now be denied.

Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I have a bandwagon?

For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a
post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my
callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to
display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

That's simply incorrect.

Let's do another example for purposes of illustration:

I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual.

If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration
added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments,
I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came
from you. Are you starting to get the picture?

However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars in
some display of dislike for me--then go for it.

No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line
between what's right and what's wrong.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear
like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had
sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had
also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration:

I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and
have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking
the time to gather the facts.

Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you
wrote it.

That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct
things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him.

It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They
exist. They can't now be denied.

Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I have a bandwagon?

For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that
a
post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with
my
callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at
best, to
display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

That's simply incorrect.

Let's do another example for purposes of illustration:

I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may
have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me
as an individual.

If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration
added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments,
I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came
from you. Are you starting to get the picture?

However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars
in
some display of dislike for me--then go for it.

No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line
between what's right and what's wrong.

Dave K8MN


Live with it, Dave, live with it...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear
like
someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that
actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had
sent it
would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had
also
changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim.

Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration:

I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and
have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking
the time to gather the facts.

Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you
wrote it.

That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct
things
from thin air is usual and status quo for him.

It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They
exist. They can't now be denied.

Don't be so quick to jump on
a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all.

I have a bandwagon?

For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that
a
post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the
opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with
my
callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at
best, to
display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but
resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction.

That's simply incorrect.

Let's do another example for purposes of illustration:

I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may
have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me
as an individual.

If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration
added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments,
I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came
from you. Are you starting to get the picture?

However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars
in
some display of dislike for me--then go for it.

No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line
between what's right and what's wrong.

Dave K8MN


Live with it, Dave, live with it...

I have no problem living with it, Kim. After all, it was a factual
account of what took place. I even provided two very good illustrations
for your benefit. As to the reality that you still don't seem to get
it, I can live with that too.

Dave K8MN

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?

Brian wrote:

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?

You had a chance to use the technique I illustrated for Kim. You hosed
it up.

Dave K8MN