In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Regardless of the reasoning, do you
concur with altering peoples posts
to reflect your own wishes?

Of course not.

But you have no negative comments for the person who does it.

But do you concur with attempts to alter the perception of
a person's status as a Ham by blatantly omitting that person's callsign in a
list containing only the callsigns of others?

Yes, if the callsign is inappropriate to the ARS.

Do you think all possible callsigns are appropriate, Dwight?

Last year the treaty was changed so that hams can now be issued calls with
four-letter suffixes (like W3PENN, for example). Think of what could be
done with some of the combinations.

Jim is aware of what he's
doing. Kim had already asked him to include her callsign (a request which
should have been unnecessary).

Why should such a request be honored? Is it against FCC rules for me to
omit a callsign in a Usenet post?

You have had no problem when others have used insulting names rather than
callsigns to refer to me, but when I use Kim's name instead of callsign you
tell me what I should do. Looks like a double standard to me.

Kim has been asked to choose a more appropriate callsign. She has
refused, which is her right, of course. Just as it is my right to avoid
that callsign and others like it when possible.

73 de Jim, N2EY