"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
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?

Nope

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


Nope


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


Nope



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.

I did, but saw no need to comment until the mis-attribute letter came
along.


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.

Most of her posts have the correct attributes (or is that
attributification) 8^) How this message became "different" is a mystery.
Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was not. Heck if I did that, I'd send
out an "oops" at least.

- Mike KB3EIA -




It was not an "oops" at all, Mike. I've noticed before that Jim sends that
list out without my callsign associated with it. I consider that my
prediction is probably among the most accurate of the predictions that have
a true "pulse" on amateur radio--REGARDLESS of the callsign of *any* chosen
ham.

Jim is disrespectful to me to make it look like I am not an amateur when he
chooses not to associate me as an amateur when I've made a conscious
decision to participate in something he's providing for fun. I
deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the
original message simply to include my callsign in the list.

I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has
a problem with that.

I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the
list. If he cannot accept me as an amateur radio operator, equal in every
way but license class to any other amateur, then I deliberately, with no
malice, and respectfully abstain from regarding *him* at all.

Kim W5TIT