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