| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#10
January 13th 04, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 09:15:19 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message . .. Jim, Personally, I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that you do not see, or will not admit to, your disrespectful treatment of Kim, [callsign deleted] Your opinion noted, Leo. However, after much consideration, I do not consider my omission of Kim's callsign to be disrespectful. YMMV. As stated before, it wasn't your omission of Kim's callsign that was disrespectful, it was the context that it was done in - omitting hers, but leaving everyone else's intact. Repeatedly. As you are aware. I am aware that you preceive it that way. Are you aware that no disrespect was intended? Your statements in defense of your conduct are based entirely upon circular logic, rationalization, contradiction and denial - indicating that you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your actions towards a fellow ham here on the group. Basically what you are saying is that I should accept Kim's callsign as appropriate for the ARS, and use it here, because: 1) FCC issued it 2) She asked me to 3) *You* don't 'have a problem' with the callsign, and therefore *I* shouldn't, either. No - I said that Kim's callsign IS a valid one, accepted by the FCC for use in the ARS. It's a *legal* one. No one disputes that. You can dislike it, revile it, be insulted by it - whatever you choose to do. But, you must respect the fact that it is a valid amateur callsign - because it is! Just like yours, issued officially by the FCC. I did not ask for this specific callsign. Kim asked for hers. Jim, you aren't the guy who gets to determine what is or is not appropriate for the ARS. Not true! We *all* have a say in what is and is not appropriate for the ARS. And that includes me. That role belongs to the regulatory authorities. And to all of us hams. Whatever your problem is with this particular call, it is between you and the FCC - not us! If they declare that it is inappropriate, then it will be withdrawn. If not, it stays. Whatever it is - it's their decision - not yours and mine! That's only true as far as the issuance of a callsign. Not its use. As you are aware. As I have stated before, no disrespect was intended. But I am not going to use Kim's callsign in my posts, because I think it is inappropriate for the IRS. In your opinion, Jim - not necessarily the opinion of the FCC, or many members of the ARS. I'm not telling them not to use Kim's callsign. You are telling me I *must* use it. Not gonna happen. However, no one is trying to say that you must use Kim's callsign in your posts - the issue is with your intentional exclusion of only her callsign from your list! Which is the same as saying I *must* use it! As you are aware. You can use it in your posts all you want. So can Kim. I won't try to impose my standards on others, even though they try to impose their standards on me. No one is attempting to impose standards upon you, Jim. Yes, they are. The message was (quite clearly) that it is inappropriate and disrespectful to omit just this one callsign from the pool, while leaving all others intact. As you well know. And as clearly stated in previous posts. As you are aware. "inappropriate and disrespectful" by whose standards? Answer: YOURS! [Kim a licensed radio amateur] told you straight up that she felt disrespected by your actions. I have felt disrespected by her action in choosing that callsign. I told her that straight up a long time ago. Not sure I understand why you would feel personally disrespected by Kim's choice of callsign, Jim - I don't imagine that she did it to offend you personally. She didn't. But that was my perception. And to paraphrase Kim: 'that's the perception that counts' You are of course free to express your opinion regarding this issue, however - but to do so in public isn't always a wise choice. Would you walk up to someone in a crowded mall and tell her exactly what you thought about their skitr being too short? Depends on who it was. Of course not - that would be impolite. And not too smart, perhaps - she might smack you!  What if it was my teenage daughter? (Not saying I do or do not have one). Some opinions are best kept to one's self And some are best expressed rather than repressed. A simple apology to her would have been appropriate. I apologize if my posts have upset anyone. That was not the intent. But I will not compromise my standards on this to avoid hurting someone's feelings. The right thing to do. In your opinion. Mine's different. Compromising standards isn't the issue, Jim. As you are aware. No, it's *exactly* the issue. To use Kim's call here would compromise my standards. If you had changed your poll to list everyone by their first name, would that have compromised your standards? Of course not. It would have created a Level Playing Field, and caused little fuss at all. It would have caused confusion because there are several people with the same first name here. It would have removed the opportunity for you to try and punish Kim for her poor choice of callsign, though - say, you weren't trying to do that, were you? Nope. Of course not - your standards are too high for that......aren't they? Yep. Jim, you have been a frequent victim of attack and insult here yourself - frankly, you should know better. Where is the insult in not using a word or phrase I think is inappropriate? As stated above, and in previous posts - it is a situational thing. For example, yelling "Hey, Dick!" to a friend sitting over at a bar is quite appropriate. Yelling "Hey, Dick!" to some biker sitting at the bar is not. What if that's the biker's name? Same phrase - totally different intent. Context is everything! As you are aware. Yet yelling both phrases is *legal* - although not always advisable or appropriate. And in the context of amateur radio callsigns, I think Kim's choice of callsign is inadvisable and inappropriate. Your own logic proves it. Insulting a fellow amateur publically, then denying and justifying the act with a litany of self-serving rhetoric. I don't see it that way at all. Do you believe that these actions, your actions, are in the best interest of the Amateur service? Yes. You may disagree, but I will not describe that disagreement as "prejudice", "censorship" or "self-serving rhetoric". What part of this statement are you having trouble with, Jim? The words ""prejudice", "censorship" and "self-serving rhetoric", for a start. They are inaccurate Definitions (and specific usage within the thread): Prejudice: "an opinion formed beforehand" (your opinion that the callsign [inappropriate callsign deleted] is inappropriate to the ARS) It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues. Therefore, it's not prejudice. Censorship: "the supression of something considered objectionable" (like the intentional omission of just one callsign in a list, perhaps?) I use the word "inappropriate", not "objectionable". And I did not "suppress" it - I just won't put it in a post of mine. Therefore, it's not censorship. Rhetoric: skill with language - (ahem) The phrase was "self-serving rhetoric", not just the word "rhetoric". AHEM. I suspect that few here join you in that belief. Doesn't matter. It certainly should! So you're saying the majority opinion should rule? What if the majority says it's inappropriate? Your quote below is quite appropriate. At times, Dr. King held standards and beliefs that were not popular. His adherence to those standards and beliefs was considered "insulting" by some. Should he have listened to them, or followed his conscience? Dr. King was a champion of equality and equal rights - a mission which cost him his life. He was dedicated to ensuring that people were treated equally, regardless of the "personal standards" of those who felt that they were not entitled to equal treatment. Equal rights under law. Equal opportunities. Not equal results. Not an abandonment of standards. Do you treat everyone equally, Jim? I treat them appropriately. What is appropriate for an adult is not appropriate for a child. To treat them equally could be very unsafe. Even when you have a strong bias against some characteristic of theirs that you find objectionable? No matter what? The only bias I have is in my Southgate Type 7. I'd refrain from drawing parallels to Dr. King until you can state that unequivocally. Without prejudice. I state without prejudice that I don't have the bias you accuse me of. I have standards that I adhere to. "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And at this 'time of challenge and controversy', I say that Kim's callsign is inappropriate to the ARS, and I will not repeat it in my posts. No insult is meant by this action. But it will not change. Once again, no one is forcing you to use the dreaded callsign in your posts. Again, Jim, the issue is singling out one individual because there is something that you don't like personally! As you well know. One's principles and beliefs, however righteous and sacrosanct, do not convey the right to treat others disrespectfully. Some people said that when people organized marches and protests against things that violated *their standards*, they were acting disrespectfully. To return to the quotation from Dr. King - in this time of challenge and controversy, someone might choose to admit that they was wrong in singling out one individual due to personal opinion, and revise his list to indicate equal respect for the status of all participants. Someone else might choose to twist the words and concepts around ad infinitum to justify their actions. Still another would take the moral high ground, and justify their actions based on rigorous personal standards and ideals. Which of these represents the Right Thing To Do? I know. And by saying you know, you are doing exactly what you describe. So do you, Jim. I don't use the term "friend" to describe Kim, because she reserves that word for a very select group, and I respect that choice of hers. But I will say that one of the characteristics of a true friend is telling the truth as the true friend sees it, even if it is not what someone wants to hear, and even if a person may get their feelings hurt or feel insulted by that truth. An excellent homily, Jim - but with a fatal flaw. True friends would conduct this level of personal information interchange only in private, and with compassion, sensitivity and dignity. A true friend would not choose to do that in a public forum, would they, Jim? Some would. I did. So did Kim, and so have you. And while I respect Kim's use of the word "friend", I would say that the honesty and openness here - even in disagreement - are the actions of "true friends". 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
