In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

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.

To be exact, I think the callsign she chose for herself is inappropriate for
the amateur radio service. I agree with Riley's evaluation of it. But I have
tried not
to make a big deal about the issue.

I cannot control what others put in their postings here, but I *can* control
what I post, and so certain inappropriate words and phrases are edited out by
me. The editing is done in accordance with Usenet and email standards. I try to
always be clear what words were written by the original author and what words
were not.

I found it amusing that other posters who "had a problem" with Kim's choice of
callsign wrote many, many postings containing that callsign, therefore giving
it
far more visibility than it would otherwise get.

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

Do you think it's her right to misattribute?

Do you think it's her right to change quoted posts with no indication of having
done so?

Do you think it's her right to end a post with someone else's typical
signature?

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.

"Well, isn't that special?" ;-)

YMMV. That's your right.

It's surreal to note that Kim's alteration of quotes raises far, far less
comment and condemnation than my omission of her callsign. In fact, I've been
omitting it for many months and no one has noticed until now.

Of all the people who post here, Kim always struck me as the one who would
*least* need to have her status as a radio amateur (or her status as anything
else) validated, endorsed, supported or otherwise patronized by me. Or by
anyone else.

I'm sometimes electro-politically incorrect. That's not going to change. Deal
with it.

But I don't misattribute and then say the header should make it clear.

73 de Jim, N2EY