Jim,

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse. Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate. No issue there - that is entirely your right. I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.
Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree. Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim. Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

73, Leo



On 15 Jan 2004 09:40:58 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?

Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct,
which is clearly missing here.

So let me get this straight.

In order to display "gentlemanly conduct", you think I should
use Kim's callsign in my posts. Even though doing so violates
my standards. And even though it was chosen for reasons that
no gentleman would endorse.

Not at all - I'm saying that you have omitted all of the calls so as
not to single her out. Neither compromising your standards nor
offending her.

As you are aware.

Surreal.

No, diversionary, Jim. I have stated the issue many times. You
choose to ignore it.

As you are aware.

I'm not aware of any ungentlemanly behavior on my part. I
am aware of some ungentlemanly behavior on the part of
others, though.

That is indeed unfortunate, Jim.


I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue.

Nice attempt at diversion, Leo.

Not at all - you are fixated on her callsign being the issue. The
real issue is the manner in which you chose to single her out! As she
told you herself.

Instead, you choose to make a moralistic issue out of it. It is not.


My standards are *exactly* the issue.

No.

Your handling of the situation is the issue. As stated many times. Not
your standards.


I'm being told, again and again, that my choice not to put Kim's
callsign in my posts is "wrong", and that my standards are of lesser
importance than Kim's feelings.

Incorrect - that is not what you are being "told" at all. Please
reread my previous comments.

As for your standards being more important, they are not - they are of
equal importance. Hers and yours. Unless you are more important than
kim, that is.

So let me ask the question straight out:

Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?

Both are equally important, Jim. Unless you are somehow more
important, as started above...


You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

Sorry to hear that, Jim.

Do you want me to lie about it? I won't.

Perhaps, then, there was no attempt to bully Kim. I stand corrected,
Gladiator


I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live
together, making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

...but totally unrelated to the issue.

No, totally related to the issue. He was very considerate of other people's
feelings. But that consideration did not keep him from being very very
"annoying" when his standards/values/conscience required it.

My standards require that I not put Kim's call in the list - because I
think it's inappropriate. I'm sorry if someone finds that annoying.
But I'm not going to change it.

No problem - but you could have left them all out, couldn't you? As
stated many times. A compromise indeed - but not a compromise of your
standards at all.

As you are aware.

I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.
I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post.
I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous
two statements.

No arguement with the first two points at all Jim - it is your
omitting just one callsign (hers) from your post that is the issue.
I have said repeatedly, as has Kim, that you should have used no one's
call in your post if the situation bothered you that much. That would
have solved the problem without compromising your standards, wouldn't
it? Who would have a reason to complain about that? She would have
been treated equally to everyone else (her complaint), and her
callsign would not have appeared in your post (your complaint). Is
there a problem with this?

If you believe that her call is inappropriate, and you do not wish to
use it in a post, those are your standards and are deserving of the
respect of everyone. But, that is not the central issue of my posts
to you - the above paragraph is.


So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?

Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed.

Yet you give no examples.

You consider singling someone out and against their wishes courteous
and friendly?

I don't.


Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

Not the issue.

Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it?

I don't - that is not the issue at all.

Your standards do not allow you to use her callsign in a post. No
problem there at all, Jim. Omitting just hers was unfair, though -
that is the issue. As stated many times.

That is the issue that I am discussing. Not you, though - you are
trying to shift it to a position defensable by your standards.


You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right!

Not according to Kim.

According to you - read your own post!

Yes, according to me. Not according to Kim.

That's what I wrote.

As you are aware. ;-)

I refer exactly to what you wrote. Not what Kim wrote.

But hey, you beat Kim, right?

Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

Not true at all, Jim.

I think it is.

Your opinion.


Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full
version of this post:

"....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun."

An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim.

Nobody is declaring a draw.

A draw is when neither side thinks they won, or can win, and so the game ends.

In this case, Kim thinks she won, and I think I won. Not a draw.

Rhetorical, Jim - ...perhaps a tie?

An interesting way to declare a tie, Jim.


That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.

Yes, you are. Not me.

Nope. Not the issue.


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

Leo, you are avoiding the central issue:

No. Not at all. Please reread my comments carefully! You are arguing
a different issue.

Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?

That's the central issue, right there.

Nope. Not the issue at all, Jim. As stated many times.

Regarding which is more important, though - both. There was a way to
handle this without compromising either. As has been stated many
times.

Or are you saying that you are more important, Jim?

I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list.

You mean using her name instead of her callsign.

No.

Not the issue, as you are aware (or should be?). Omitting just her
call in the list is the issue. Just that one call - no others.

That was done because of my standards. Using her callsign in that list
was inconsistent with my standard that it's inappropriate. So I didn't
use it. As I have said before, no disrespect, insult, or singling out
were intended.

And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period.

You are saying that I should ignore my standards out of courtesy to Kim.
That having her callsign included in the list, rather than her name, is
more important than any consideration of *my* feelings or standards.

That's the issue.

Nope. As stated above, and many times. And as you are aware.

An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

Not by me. By you and others.

Nope. The issue has been stated many times.

Say it right out, Leo. Tell me that I should ignore/hide/deny my
standards of what is appropriate in deference to
"courtesy" and Kim's feelings.

Nope. Compromise was possible, without impacting your standards. As
you are aware.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue?

That's all I've been doing in these posts.

Nope - you're facing up to a different issue. One that you can
justify with your standards. Please reread my comments carefully.


- or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

How am I fooling myself?

I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.
I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post.
I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous
two statements.

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

Not the issue at all. As has been stated many times.

Are you aware of what you are telling me to do?

Yup - deal with the issue at hand. Not the one that you keep falling
back on.


"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

Yup.

You want me to keep my standards private, and not act on them, because
they aren't the same as yours. Well, that's just not going to happen.

Nope. Please reread Mr. Twain's statement.

btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why
not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all?

Guess because it's her choice, Jim. I sure wouldn't want that call
assigned to me, but Kim does. Her way of poking a finger in the eye
of those who judge her by appearance alone, perhaps. Her own personal
reasons, though. And she has every right to have it - it's up to her.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Jim,

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse. Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate. No issue there - that is entirely your right. I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.
Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree. Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?


It's much easier for the entire issue, to do what I have done. I requested
that Jim refrain from having my name in the list. Jim has said he'll do
that.

The unfortunate thing is that I suppose I'll have to quit responding to his
posts also, if I am to uphold to my *own* set of standards--because I think
it is totally wrong for him to remove my callsign from an original post of
mine. It is most unfortunate that his ambition to be "correct" is stronger
than his ambition to dialogue.


That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim. Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

73, Leo


Kim W5TIT

In article , Leo
writes:

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse.

There are several issues, not just one.

Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

Let's see what you've got, then.

I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate.

That's correct. It's also an issue to some people.

No issue there - that is entirely your right.

Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others.

I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.

Also correct. And also an issue to some people, who say that my deletion of
Kim's call is "wrong".

Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree.

And I disagree. Kim singled herself out by choosing that callsign. As you are
aware.

Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

No, it wouldn't.

That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim.

No, it isn't, but we'll get to that later. Right now, let's discuss that issue.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that I should either include
everyone's callsign, or no one's.

Now since I don't wish to include Kim's callsign, that leaves only the option
of including no one's callsign, in order to accomodate Kim's feelings.

But what about everyone else's feelings, including mine? I want my call listed.

I would feel disrespected to be listed by name rather than callsign or name and
callsign on an amateur radio newsgroup.

Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be
on the list..

Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

Yes, they are. I've been told that "it's not my place" to determine whether a
callsign is appropriate or not. I've been told that my actions are "wrong".

As you are aware.

73, Leo

On 15 Jan 2004 09:40:58 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo

writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code
testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate
words?

Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct,
which is clearly missing here.

So let me get this straight.

In order to display "gentlemanly conduct", you think I should
use Kim's callsign in my posts. Even though doing so violates
my standards. And even though it was chosen for reasons that
no gentleman would endorse.

Not at all - I'm saying that you have omitted all of the calls so as
not to single her out.

I think you mean "*could* have omitted". And yes, I could have.

Neither compromising your standards nor
offending her.

It would have compromised my standards.

Surreal.

No, diversionary, Jim. I have stated the issue many times. You
choose to ignore it.

No, I don't ignore. You ignore the other issues.

I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue.

Nice attempt at diversion, Leo.

Not at all - you are fixated on her callsign being the issue.

Not fixated. It's one of the issues. There would be no
problem if she chose an appropriate callsign.

The
real issue is the manner in which you chose to single her out! As she
told you herself.

That's *her* issue and *your* issue. But it's not the *only* issue.

As you are aware.

Instead, you choose to make a moralistic issue out of it. It is not.

It's a moralistic issue when people tell me I'm not doing "the right thing"
and that something is "not my place" to decide.

It's a moralistic issue when I'm told what I *should* do in a post.

My standards are *exactly* the issue.

No.

Then what's the problem?

Your handling of the situation is the issue. As stated many times. Not
your standards.

I handled the situation in the only way my standards would allow. Therefore,
my standards are an issue.

I'm being told, again and again, that my choice not to put Kim's
callsign in my posts is "wrong", and that my standards are of lesser
importance than Kim's feelings.

Incorrect - that is not what you are being "told" at all. Please
reread my previous comments.

I'm referring to other posts, too.

As for your standards being more important, they are not - they are of
equal importance. Hers and yours. Unless you are more important than
kim, that is.

Then Kim should consider my views equally with her own in choice of a callsign.
She didn't.

So let me ask the question straight out:

Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?

Both are equally important, Jim.

Why?

Unless you are somehow more
important, as started above...

How does that follow?

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

Sorry to hear that, Jim.

Do you want me to lie about it? I won't.

Perhaps, then, there was no attempt to bully Kim.

Thank you.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying",
saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live
together, making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

...but totally unrelated to the issue.

No, totally related to the issue. He was very considerate of other people's
feelings. But that consideration did not keep him from being very very
"annoying" when his standards/values/conscience required it.

My standards require that I not put Kim's call in the list - because I
think it's inappropriate. I'm sorry if someone finds that annoying.
But I'm not going to change it.

No problem - but you could have left them all out, couldn't you?

Not without annoying others and myself.

A compromise indeed - but not a compromise of your
standards at all.

It would be a compromise of my standards. And why should I compromise them?

If I follow your suggested compromise to its logical conclusion, I should not
use *anyone's* callsign in *any* post - so as not to hurt Kim's feelings.

I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.
I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post.
I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous
two statements.

No arguement with the first two points at all Jim - it is your
omitting just one callsign (hers) from your post that is the issue.
I have said repeatedly, as has Kim, that you should have used no one's
call in your post if the situation bothered you that much.

BINGO!

You just told me what I should do. Now who's being moralistic?

That would
have solved the problem without compromising your standards, wouldn't
it?

No.

Who would have a reason to complain about that?

Anyone else who wanted their callsign included.

She would have
been treated equally to everyone else (her complaint), and her
callsign would not have appeared in your post (your complaint). Is
there a problem with this?

Yes. See above.

If you believe that her call is inappropriate, and you do not wish to
use it in a post, those are your standards and are deserving of the
respect of everyone.

But everyone does not respect them.

But, that is not the central issue of my posts
to you - the above paragraph is.

There are other issues, whether you choose to see them or not.

Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

Not the issue.

Exactly the issue. Why do you avoid it?

I don't - that is not the issue at all.

Yes, it is. To me and others.

Your standards do not allow you to use her callsign in a post. No
problem there at all, Jim. Omitting just hers was unfair, though -
that is the issue.

It's only unfair by *your* standards and *Kim's* standars - which you are
trying to force on me.

That is the issue that I am discussing. Not you, though - you are
trying to shift it to a position defensable by your standards.

See above.


Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

Not true at all, Jim.

I think it is.

Your opinion.

My perception - and that's the one that counts, remember?

Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full
version of this post:

"....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun."

An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim.

Nobody is declaring a draw.

A draw is when neither side thinks they won, or can win, and so the game
ends.

In this case, Kim thinks she won, and I think I won. Not a draw.

Rhetorical, Jim -

Accurate.

...perhaps a tie?

Nope. A tie is when both sides agree that neither side won or lost. Not the
case here.

An interesting way to declare a tie, Jim.

Not a tie.

That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.

Yes, you are. Not me.

Nope. Not the issue.

Exactly the issue.

73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

Leo, you are avoiding the central issue:

No. Not at all. Please reread my comments carefully! You are arguing
a different issue.

That's the issue you keep avoiding. Probaly because you know I'm right.

Which is more important: following my standards/judgement/conscience,
or Kim's feelings?

That's the central issue, right there.

Nope. Not the issue at all, Jim. As stated many times.

To me it's the central issue.

Regarding which is more important, though - both.

Sidestepping the issue.

There was a way to
handle this without compromising either.

Sure - have Kim change her callsign to something appropriate.

Or are you saying that you are more important, Jim?

Does not follow.

I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list.

You mean using her name instead of her callsign.

No.

Not the issue, as you are aware (or should be?). Omitting just her
call in the list is the issue. Just that one call - no others.

Omitting others would single *them* out, by your logic.

That was done because of my standards. Using her callsign in that list
was inconsistent with my standard that it's inappropriate. So I didn't
use it. As I have said before, no disrespect, insult, or singling out
were intended.

And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period.

You are saying that I should ignore my standards out of courtesy to Kim.
That having her callsign included in the list, rather than her name, is
more important than any consideration of *my* feelings or standards.

That's the issue.

Nope.

Yep.

An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

Not by me. By you and others.

Nope. The issue has been stated many times.

By me.

Say it right out, Leo. Tell me that I should ignore/hide/deny my
standards of what is appropriate in deference to
"courtesy" and Kim's feelings.

Nope. Compromise was possible, without impacting your standards.

Not any compromise that has been proposed here.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue?

That's all I've been doing in these posts.

Nope - you're facing up to a different issue. One that you can
justify with your standards. Please reread my comments carefully.

I did. And mine.

- or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

How am I fooling myself?

I'm aware that I think Kim's callsign is inappropriate for the ARS.
I'm aware that I won't intentionally use it in a post.
I'm aware that others are trying to get me to change the previous
two statements.

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.

Not the issue at all.

Are you aware of what you are telling me to do?

Yup - deal with the issue at hand. Not the one that you keep falling
back on.

I'm not going to compromise my standards. Period.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

Yup.

You want me to keep my standards private, and not act on them, because
they aren't the same as yours. Well, that's just not going to happen.

Nope. Please reread Mr. Twain's statement.

I did. I'm not going to hide my standards.

btw - if Kim's callsign is "just a license number", then why
not pick a different one? Why a vanity call at all?

Guess because it's her choice, Jim.

Then respect my choice of how to post as you respect her choice of callsign.

I sure wouldn't want that call
assigned to me, but Kim does. Her way of poking a finger in the eye
of those who judge her by appearance alone, perhaps. Her own personal
reasons, though.

Sure. That does not make it appropriate to the ARS.

And she has every right to have it - it's up to her.

I don't think FCC should issue such calls. Nor should hams choose them. They do
no good to the ARS. It wasn't the "right thing to do".

Your argument is fixated on Kim's "right" to choose such a call, and
ignores a ham's responsibility to the ARS.

Just my opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse.

There are several issues, not just one.

OK - I'm listening.


Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

Let's see what you've got, then.

Let's go.


I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate.

That's correct. It's also an issue to some people.

OK - fair enough. And it shouldn't be. Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

No issue there - that is entirely your right.

Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others.

Others may, but who cares - it's none of their business.


I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.

Also correct. And also an issue to some people, who say that my deletion of
Kim's call is "wrong".

Let's focus on that one, and agree that deleting her call from your
post is necessary for you to due to your standards. I have no issue
there at all. If you don't want to use it, OK. Let's clear this one
off too - agreed?


Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree.

And I disagree. Kim singled herself out by choosing that callsign. As you are
aware.

Yes she did - and quite intentionally, too, as she has stated.

That wasn't, however, what I was saying in my statement above. Simply
that Kim feels that you singled her out too, by omitting just her call
from the list.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....do you see
where she might get that feeling?


Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

No, it wouldn't.

Honestly, I dont agree with you on this point. It would have been an
easy compromise to make, and woulld potentially have offended no one.
More on this further down in the post!


That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim.

No, it isn't, but we'll get to that later. Right now, let's discuss that issue.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that I should either include
everyone's callsign, or no one's.

Now since I don't wish to include Kim's callsign, that leaves only the option
of including no one's callsign, in order to accomodate Kim's feelings.

Agreed - in order to treat everyone equally, that would be the only
other option available given the situation.


But what about everyone else's feelings, including mine? I want my call listed.

I would feel disrespected to be listed by name rather than callsign or name and
callsign on an amateur radio newsgroup.

Yes, and I believe that Kim feels exactly the same way, Jim. For the
same reason as you, I suppose - she is also a ham. (She does not feel
that her call is in any way wrong, remember.)


Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only
immediately after Kim's original complaint. And seen what comments
came back next. If I had several legitimate complaints (without the
agendas that we have seen in several recent posts {not yours, Jim!)
which obviously relate to Kim personally rather than just her
call...), then yes there would be no other alternative than to put the
calls back - but I would have written and offered Kim the option of
going by name only or dropping out before I went ahead. At least I'd
be able to tell Kim that I tried to fix it for her, but it didn't work
out with the rest of the group.

Maybe it's just me, but I would try first to resolve her complaint if
possible, out of respect for her as a fellow amateur. I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.


Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be
on the list..

True, but that was after the had become frustrated with trying to
solve this issue.


Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

Yes, they are. I've been told that "it's not my place" to determine whether a
callsign is appropriate or not. I've been told that my actions are "wrong".

As you are aware.

I did state that it is in fact no one individual's place to determine
what is or is not appropriate for the ARS - that role belongs to the
regulators, and to the will of the majority of us, I suppose.

Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.

Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards - simply to point
out that perhaps a more amicable solution to this issue was possible
without compromising anyone's standards - finding a common ground for
all.

That's it - that's my point.


73, Leo

On 15 Jan 2004 09:40:58 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

remainder of post snipped - in the hope that the above covers the outstanding issues well enough.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
news
On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )


Just for the record, my opinion is that it is Jim's list and he has the
right to set it up anyway he wishes, whether that is names, callsigns, or a
mix. His list, his choice.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jim - did I miss your reply on this one?

73, Leo

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:11:37 GMT, Leo wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse.

There are several issues, not just one.

OK - I'm listening.


Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

Let's see what you've got, then.

Let's go.


I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate.

That's correct. It's also an issue to some people.

OK - fair enough. And it shouldn't be. Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

No issue there - that is entirely your right.

Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others.

Others may, but who cares - it's none of their business.


I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.

Also correct. And also an issue to some people, who say that my deletion of
Kim's call is "wrong".

Let's focus on that one, and agree that deleting her call from your
post is necessary for you to due to your standards. I have no issue
there at all. If you don't want to use it, OK. Let's clear this one
off too - agreed?


Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree.

And I disagree. Kim singled herself out by choosing that callsign. As you are
aware.

Yes she did - and quite intentionally, too, as she has stated.

That wasn't, however, what I was saying in my statement above. Simply
that Kim feels that you singled her out too, by omitting just her call
from the list.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....do you see
where she might get that feeling?


Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

No, it wouldn't.

Honestly, I dont agree with you on this point. It would have been an
easy compromise to make, and woulld potentially have offended no one.
More on this further down in the post!


That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim.

No, it isn't, but we'll get to that later. Right now, let's discuss that issue.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that I should either include
everyone's callsign, or no one's.

Now since I don't wish to include Kim's callsign, that leaves only the option
of including no one's callsign, in order to accomodate Kim's feelings.

Agreed - in order to treat everyone equally, that would be the only
other option available given the situation.


But what about everyone else's feelings, including mine? I want my call listed.

I would feel disrespected to be listed by name rather than callsign or name and
callsign on an amateur radio newsgroup.

Yes, and I believe that Kim feels exactly the same way, Jim. For the
same reason as you, I suppose - she is also a ham. (She does not feel
that her call is in any way wrong, remember.)


Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this? (except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only
immediately after Kim's original complaint. And seen what comments
came back next. If I had several legitimate complaints (without the
agendas that we have seen in several recent posts {not yours, Jim!)
which obviously relate to Kim personally rather than just her
call...), then yes there would be no other alternative than to put the
calls back - but I would have written and offered Kim the option of
going by name only or dropping out before I went ahead. At least I'd
be able to tell Kim that I tried to fix it for her, but it didn't work
out with the rest of the group.

Maybe it's just me, but I would try first to resolve her complaint if
possible, out of respect for her as a fellow amateur. I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.


Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be
on the list..

True, but that was after the had become frustrated with trying to
solve this issue.


Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

Yes, they are. I've been told that "it's not my place" to determine whether a
callsign is appropriate or not. I've been told that my actions are "wrong".

As you are aware.

I did state that it is in fact no one individual's place to determine
what is or is not appropriate for the ARS - that role belongs to the
regulators, and to the will of the majority of us, I suppose.

Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.

Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards - simply to point
out that perhaps a more amicable solution to this issue was possible
without compromising anyone's standards - finding a common ground for
all.

That's it - that's my point.


73, Leo

On 15 Jan 2004 09:40:58 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
m...
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

remainder of post snipped - in the hope that the above covers the outstanding issues well enough.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

In article , Leo
writes:

Jim - did I miss your reply on this one?

73, Leo

I remember answering it - check google

73 de Jim, N2EY

Just did - can't find it!

73, Leo

On 20 Jan 2004 16:55:39 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Jim - did I miss your reply on this one?

73, Leo

I remember answering it - check google

73 de Jim, N2EY

I thought I answered this, but apparently not. I'll try again...

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse.

There are several issues, not just one.

OK - I'm listening.

Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

Let's see what you've got, then.

Let's go.

I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate.

That's correct. It's also an issue to some people.

OK - fair enough. And it shouldn't be.

That's a moral judgement on your part. You're declaring what should
and should not be an issue to other people. IOW, you're telling them
what to think and what their standards should be when you say it
shouldn't be an issue.

Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

My personal standards are shared by other people. I don't know
how many, but if there's even one other person who shares my
standards, then they're *not* "no one else's".

No issue there - that is entirely your right.

Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others.

Others may, but who cares - it's none of their business.

Why not?

I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.

Also correct. And also an issue to some people, who say that my deletion of
Kim's call is "wrong".

Let's focus on that one, and agree that deleting her call from your
post is necessary for you to due to your standards. I have no issue
there at all. If you don't want to use it, OK. Let's clear this one
off too - agreed?

I won't use it in my posts. I'm not legally required to, either.

Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree.

And I disagree. Kim singled herself out by choosing that callsign. As you are
aware.

Yes she did - and quite intentionally, too, as she has stated.

Then she needs to accept the consequences of that action.

That wasn't, however, what I was saying in my statement above. Simply
that Kim feels that you singled her out too, by omitting just her call
from the list.

She and you know exactly why her call was omitted.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....

Why? It's the cause of the omission.

do you see where she might get that feeling?

Sure - she wants to be included in the list even though she
disregards the list's standards.

Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

No, it wouldn't.

Honestly, I dont agree with you on this point. It would have been an
easy compromise to make, and woulld potentially have offended no one.

It would have offended me and anyone who agreed with my standards.

More on this further down in the post!

That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim.

No, it isn't, but we'll get to that later. Right now, let's discuss that issue.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that I should either include
everyone's callsign, or no one's.

Now since I don't wish to include Kim's callsign, that leaves only the option
of including no one's callsign, in order to accomodate Kim's feelings.

Agreed - in order to treat everyone equally, that would be the only
other option available given the situation.

That means everyone must suffer in order to avoid the possibility of
Kim's feelings being hurt.

But what about everyone else's feelings, including mine? I want my call listed.

I would feel disrespected to be listed by name rather than callsign or name and
callsign on an amateur radio newsgroup.

Yes, and I believe that Kim feels exactly the same way, Jim.

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.

For the
same reason as you, I suppose - she is also a ham. (She does not feel
that her call is in any way wrong, remember.)

You're saying her feelings are more important than my standards and my feelings.

Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this?

Are you sure they aren't?

Why should the people who chose appropriate callsigns not get them
listed in order to appease those who chose inappropriate ones?

(except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

Not at all.

In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only
immediately after Kim's original complaint.

But it wasn't your post. It was my post.

And seen what comments
came back next. If I had several legitimate complaints (without the
agendas that we have seen in several recent posts {not yours, Jim!)
which obviously relate to Kim personally rather than just her
call...), then yes there would be no other alternative than to put the
calls back - but I would have written and offered Kim the option of
going by name only or dropping out before I went ahead. At least I'd
be able to tell Kim that I tried to fix it for her, but it didn't work
out with the rest of the group.

So you'd go through all that and wind up with the calls in the post because
some of us would complain.

Maybe it's just me, but I would try first to resolve her complaint if
possible, out of respect for her as a fellow amateur.

That's nice - but by doing so, you are validating her choice of
callsign. I won't do that.

I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.

My standards say that your compromise involves compromising my standards.

Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be on the list..

True, but that was after the had become frustrated with trying to
solve this issue.

She could solve it very easily by choosing an appropriate callsign.

Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

Yes, they are. I've been told that "it's not my place" to determine whether a
callsign is appropriate or not. I've been told that my actions are "wrong".

As you are aware.

I did state that it is in fact no one individual's place to determine
what is or is not appropriate for the ARS - that role belongs to the
regulators, and to the will of the majority of us, I suppose.

I recall being told it was not *MY* place to judge. And I disagree.
It's my place to judge in terms of what I will and will not validate.

Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.

Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards

Tell it to those who used words like "prejudice" to describe
my standards.

- simply to point
out that perhaps a more amicable solution to this issue was possible
without compromising anyone's standards - finding a common ground for
all.

That's it - that's my point.


That's fine. And I disagree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.


I (W5TIT) have an appropriate callsign (W5TIT). The word "tit" (not the
callsign W5TIT) is not (the word tit) appropriate for use on the amateur
radio bands (but the callsign W5TIT is). And, the word "tit" is *not* used
on the amateur radio bands. Well, not that I (W5TIT) know of anyway. The
callsign W5TIT is used on the amateur radio bands and is quite an
appropriate callsign (W5TIT that is).

How can I (W5TIT) be more appropriate than that?

Kim W5TIT