(N2EY) wrote in
:

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.


You're kidding, right? Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
didn't notice.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's. But I'm not an Internet cop.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
very prominently displayed to me.

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

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


73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

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.


You're kidding, right?

About what?

Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

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

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

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your posts,
Alun?

Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
didn't notice.

But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's.

Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?

But I'm not an Internet cop.

Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
very prominently displayed to me.

Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was
from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted
different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

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

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

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.


You're kidding, right?

About what?

About thinking no-one had noticed. I think if you actually asked you would
find that we all noticed


Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

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

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

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your
posts, Alun?


Probably about the same as it would be if they left my callsign out of a
list of callsigns and put my name in instead.

Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we didn't notice.

But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's.

Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?

Because the FCC issued it


But I'm not an Internet cop.

Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.

My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without
adding anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In
fact I can skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually
do, unless I need to go back and get the context. And the name of the
actual sender is very prominently displayed to me.

Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it
was from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake.
Granted different people don't see the same screen, as they are using
different newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

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




Jim, leaving Kim's callsign out of the list was calculated to annoy her.
There's little point complaining that she didn't like it and acted
accordingly.

FYI, both my G calls end in VUK, which is a banned combination on car
licence plates in the same country, apparently due to similarity with the
F*** word. G8VUK was sequentially issued. G0VUK was not, which apparently
puts me in the same league as Kim.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


(N2EY) wrote in
:


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.


You're kidding, right?

About what?


About thinking no-one had noticed. I think if you actually asked you would
find that we all noticed


Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

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

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

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your
posts, Alun?



Probably about the same as it would be if they left my callsign out of a
list of callsigns and put my name in instead.


Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we didn't notice.

But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's.

Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?


Because the FCC issued it


But I'm not an Internet cop.


Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.


My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without
adding anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In
fact I can skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually
do, unless I need to go back and get the context. And the name of the
actual sender is very prominently displayed to me.

Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it
was from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake.
Granted different people don't see the same screen, as they are using
different newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.

To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

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





Jim, leaving Kim's callsign out of the list was calculated to annoy her.
There's little point complaining that she didn't like it and acted
accordingly.

FYI, both my G calls end in VUK, which is a banned combination on car
licence plates in the same country, apparently due to similarity with the
F*** word. G8VUK was sequentially issued. G0VUK was not, which apparently
puts me in the same league as Kim.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun, you can google up the background of Kim's call sign if you like.
It *is* a double entendre. I know this and am not particulary troubled
by it. Jim also knows this also, and is.

There is still also the issue of the two nearly identical posts from
the same day. THe difference is that post one is properly attributed,
and the second isn't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:


(N2EY) wrote in
:


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.


You're kidding, right?


About what?

Do you think it's anyone's right to misattribute?

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

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

What would be your response if someone did the same thing to your posts,
Alun?


Just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we
didn't notice.


But there was no comment from you except about what *I* should do.

Personally, I think you should use her call if you are going to use
everyone else's.


Why should I do that if I think the call is inappropriate?


But I'm not an Internet cop.


Nor I. But there are certain accepted rules of Usenet.


My reaction to Kim's post was initially "why did she post without adding
anything". If I see something in quotes I don't even read it. In fact I can
skip over it by clicking on a particular symbol, and usually do, unless I
need to go back and get the context. And the name of the actual sender is
very prominently displayed to me.


Of course. So why not indicate the changes, as is customary and proper?

So, if this was misattribution it wasn't very successful, as I saw it was

from Kim immediately and just thought she hit 'send' by mistake. Granted

different people don't see the same screen, as they are using different
newsreaders, but that's how it appears to me using XNews.


To the AOL and Google readers it appears as I wrote something I didn't.

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -



'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to
the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world
was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple
of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that
in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!

The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my
callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like
I don't have a callsign?

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...

I just went back through google too look at the post, Jim. The post is
probably about the same to misinterpret as the newsgroup mail style post.

But something interesting is in there.

In the post on 2004-01-06 at 20:15 PST is the particular post that got
all this started.

There is another post that is essentially the same that was posted at
02:49:03 PST, ealier in the day. That particular message *has* the
proper attributes.

Since all Kim's other posts have the proper attributes, I'd have to
guess that Kim knew pretty well that the second post would ensure some
controversy. Probably her way of making her point. Just a guess.

- Mike KB3EIA -




'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN to
the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the world
was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a couple
of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note that
in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!

The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was my
callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks* like
I don't have a callsign?

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

"And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
made well.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as
everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

"And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
made well.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, as I replied to Kim's post, I noticed it but chose to stay out of the
fight that I knew was almost certain to come.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...

Kim W5TIT wrote:

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as

everyone

thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

"And that", as Paul Harvey says, "is the rest of the story." Point
made well.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Mike, as I replied to Kim's post, I noticed it but chose to stay out of the
fight that I knew was almost certain to come.

And a good idea that is!

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
[snip]
'S 'bout time. Now, to all who have been participating in this debate,
WHICH style of post was it that got more noticed I had added my CALLSIGN
to
the list? It took you all (and actually it took only Mike because no one
else noticed) almost exactly 3 days to notice that the two posts were made
on the same day. One with (and first) and one without attributes. And, I
honestly ask: who really noticed one (attributes) or the other (no
attributes)? I'd almost bet a buck that even Jim wondered what in the
world
was in that post that was different, whether the attributes were there or
not. By the way, note that the post that was made somewhere around a
couple
of days ago...where I again submitted the list without attributes, note
that
in *that* post, my information appears at the top of the post (the "Kim
Walker said" stuff). Is anyone watching this stuff? Really?!

The entire point had been having my callsign *in the list* as a ham radio
operator. Jim complains that to Google or whatever, it looked like he had
posted something he had not said. A) the only thing he had not said was
my
callsign so who cares? B) What about someone who is casually looking at
those posts and completely disregards my submission because it *looks*
like
I don't have a callsign?

At any rate, I don't think attributes are as paid attention to as everyone
thinks...UNTIL they come up like this...

Kim W5TIT


I pay attention to every single attribute and immediately noticed the
difference in both posts. I elected not to get into the debate and kept my
opinions to myself. However since you seem to think people ignore the
attributes, I decided I must repond to dispel that notion. And as far as
I'm concerned, deliberately making the attribute appear to be something
other than it was happens to be wrong. Making errors in keeping attributes
in long threads happens and is excusable. Choosing to make an attribute
appear something else is not excusable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE