| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
January 10th 04, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Leo
writes: On 10 Jan 2004 13:38:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , "Kim" writes: 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. There was no disrespect intended, Kim. If you feel disrespected that's your perception, not my intent. But Jim, it is disrespectful to intentionally and repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the rights of another person - especially in a public forum. I agree! What rights were not acknowledged by me? That is not just her perception - it's pretty clear to me as well! I ask again: What rights were not acknowledged by me? Do you believe that you have the right to impose your own personal morals and prejudices upon others? Not to any extent beyond that which others have the right to do the same to me. Do others have the "right" to demand that I use certain words in my posts? Did anyone here ask you to go ahead and censor anything which you found to be personally offensive? Certainly not. I can't "censor" anyone on Usenet except myself. Kim, you or anyone else can post whatever their ISPs will allow. That does not mean I have to repeat it. What I did is called editing. It's my right to edit replies, isn't it? Note this: I started this thread. The poll is my idea, and I wrote the original list and its updates. So if someone says I *must* or even *should* not do the list a certain way, it's *they* who are trying to censor *me*. If someone wants to post a revised list with callsigns included, that's their right - as long as they don't make it look like I wrote something I did not. I deliberately, with no malice, and consciously deleted the attributes of the original message simply to include my callsign in the list. Without malice, perhaps, but not without prejudice. A prejudice, by the way, which I would rather not have thrust upon me! So is what Kim did to my posts OK with you, Leo? At first, you simply changed the quoted text *without* changing the symbols, so it looked like I wrote something I did not write. I chalked that one up to a simple typo and said nothing. Then, you peeled off *all* the symbols, including the one by my signature line, so it looked like I had signed a post you made. Leo - if someone did that to a post of yours, would you say it was their right to do it? I don't give a hoot if you, the Usenet police, Jim, or any other person has a problem with that. If you do not respect Usenet conventions, why should anyone respect your desire to have your callsign included? You want respect that you do not give others. Jim, since when do two wrongs make a right? Which two wrongs? Kim has incorrectly attributed at least three of my posts. I do not see where my nonuse of her callsign is "wrong". Some might say that characterizing my nonuse of that callsign as "wrong" is really a way of someone imposing their own personal morals and prejudices upon me. That doesn't sound like you! Or are you saying that you deleted her call because she does not follow Usenet conventions? That's not true, either. I did not use her call when making up the list because I think it is inappropriate for the ARS. She chose that call - FCC will not issue such calls sequentially. It was discussed to death in a thread called "one step closer to extinction" that exceeded 3000 posts. I've requested that Jim just plain remove my name and prediction from the list. Done. No problem. 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. I have *always* accepted you as an amateur radio operator, Kim. But I do not post your callsign because I think you made an inappropriate choice. That is not up to you to decide, Jim. Why not? Isn't it my right to have the opinion that certain callsigns are not appropriate? Is there a law which says I *must* use callsigns in a Usenet post? ITU recently made it legal for countries to issue callsigns with four-letter suffixes, like W3PENN. Imagine the possibilities. The FCC could have refused to issue the call if they felt that it was inappropriate (just like the motor vehicle vanity plate folks do!). Other countries (VE for one) freely issue this suffix as well! FCC *does* refuse to issue the suffix sequentially. Look in the database, or better yet an old callbook, and you'll see that the suffixes immediately before and after are much more common. If you met Dick Van Dyke in person one day, would you refuse to address him as anything other than 'Richard', because you felt that his parents made an inappropriate choice? Of course not! That's silly. Invalid analogy. "Dick" is a common male nickname. But we hams are not "equal in every way but license class". Each of us is better at some things than others. I'm sure there are things involving amateur radio that you're better at than me, and there are probably things involving amateur radio that I'm better at than you. So we are not equal in every way but license class. Jim, you know that's not the level of equality that Kim was referring to. No, I do not. I took it the way she expressed it. As an licensed amateur, she is entitled to use her FCC-issued vanity callsign, just like you! Of course! And she does use it here. But is there some rule that says I *have to* use it here? Do I not have the right to refrain from doing so? (and, up here, (several calls with suffixes identical to Kim's) all licensed amateurs, two of whom are male). Were those calls sequentially issued? I did not include your callsign in the list because I think that your choice of callsign (even though it's legal) is inappropriate to the amateur radio service. You *chose* that callsign, and the FCC would not have issued it sequentially. Why not? Because of its obvious meaning. There are several such callsigns. FCC will, however, issue them if requested through the vanity program. It is a legal suffix, and if it was not on some banned list it may have gone out in sequence. Please refer me to an FCC statement to the contrary. I refer you to the Callbook and databases. In Canada, if you don't select a call when you pass your test, you get one issued randomly. If it's on the list, it's fair game! And this suffix is on the list in all of the VE areas. In my opinion, it's inappropriate. Do I not have the right to such an opinion? The fact that something is legal does not make it appropriate to do, or in the best interests of all concerned. Jim, please do not put yourself in the position of deciding what is in the best interests of anyone other than yourself - I for one would prefer to make my own determination of what I find acceptable and unacceptable. that role does not belong to you, me or anyone else here! Any time a person expresses an opinion of what should or should not be done by othr people, or what is acceptable or unacceptable, they are deciding what is "right" and "wrong" for more than themselves. It's an unavoidable consequence of having an opinion. The only other option is to never express any opinions at all. For example, some people say the Morse code test for an amateur license should be eliminated. They're saying that their judgement on the issue should take precedence over what others think and want. They're saying that the FCC's current rules are incorrect and need to change. And many of them say that what is *best* for amateur radio is for the code test to go away. Do they have the right to say those things, and to try to get their will imposed on others, or not? I say they have that right - and those who disagree have rights, too. I would suggest that you are way out of line when you impose your own value system to overrule something which is permitted by law. See above about the tests. What you are saying is that I *must* use Kim's callsign here, and I *must not* oppose the choice of similar ones, because they are permitted by law. Am I allowed to object to *anything* that is permitted by law? If Kim's callsign is that offensive to you, then you should ignore her posts entirely. Why? Kim is not a bad person. She is not my enemy. I simply disagree with her about callsign choice. What you seem to be saying is that you want to censor *me*, by determining how I can post here. On the air, you would probably ignore or refuse to reply to someone whom you found to be offensive - here in Usenet, we have the killfile for this purpose. Not censorship! Where have I censored anyone? Where Have I tried to prevent someone from posting anyhting? Intentional deletion of her call is disrespectful, (it is!) and not within your mandate as a reader of this group or a fellow ham to do. I disagree. Her choice of callsign is disrespectful ot other hams and the ARS. IMHO YMMV Jim, doesn't our society have enough 'politcally correct' folks running around already (jeez, even 'manhole covers' are called 'access covers' now, because someone got offended by the 'male bias'). I agree 100%. I see the attempt to force me to use Kim's callsign on Usenet as a form of political correctness. I'm being told that I *must* post in a certain way. Why? I would think that inappropriate use of her call would be anything related to sexual innuendo, referenced to the slang word [slang word deleted] Why do you think Kim chose that particular call, Leo? She's not a birdwatcher. Those posts I ignore. Not censor, ignore. I ignore many posts here. I don't censor anyone. Appropriate use, however, would be anything related to amateur radio - as it is a valid callsign. Like this newsgroup, for example. This newsgroup does not require callsigns. Other posters have refused to use my callsign, and instead have called me all kinds of insulting names - and their was no protest from folks who now tell me I am being disrespectful. Why on Earth a man of your intelligence would have a problem just typing it, I'm sure I don't know. I don't have a problem typing it, Leo. I simply choose not to. Whatever it it, I hope you are able to navigate past it, Jim. Kim earned the right to use her call, and you have no right to deny her that right to do so. Period. I agree 100%! She has the right to use it. But no one has the right to force *me* to use it here on Usenet. Or do they? Suppose - just suppose - someone included a word or phrase you found inappropriate or offensive in a post. Would you say that everyone *must* include that word or phrase in any replies? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Using a Pool Cage As an Antenna? | Antenna | |||
| Use a Pool Cage As An Antenna? | Antenna | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
| REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment | |||
| REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment | |||
Threaded Mode
