On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:27 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Leo wrote:

My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to
expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just
her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have
not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts,
as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her
as less than equal. Period.

Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in
her post of 05/23/2000:

From Kim's post

Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the
call?
Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as
it has.
Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what
Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona.

Back to me:

Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply
allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite
frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep.

While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent,
and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one
subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here
long enough!


And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not
based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes:

Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and
couldn't
Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first
sarcastic remark
Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity
callsign. I
Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my
Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign
that would
Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I
would get
Kim K5TIT if I could.

Back to me:

There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read
it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The
callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or
small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with
it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts.

Tifted tutmouses? I think I saw one of them last summer!

Mike, you may well be correct in your analysis - a callsign such as
that one could well be used in many different ways (troll being one of
them). Troll itself has different connotations - it could be an
icebreaker ,convesation starter, or usenet WMD - depending on its use,
and the actions of the user.

My arguement has from the beginning focussed on a very specific part
of this overall issue - the exclusion of only one call from a list,
while leaving the others intact. The reason being - if the folks who
complain so vehemently here believe that Kim's
call/behaviour/language/whatever are obscene, inappropriate, high in
transfats or otherwise detrimental to the sanctity of the group, then
the appropriate thing to do would be to ignore or killfile her, and be
done with it. Why would anyone wilfully and intentionally annoy her
by intentionally removing her call from each post time and time again?
Unless there are other agendas....like to elicit a predictable
reaction, perhaps.....

I suspect that some of the folks here are using the issue of her call
as a springboard to voice their pedantic, didactic, sanctimonious,
gynomammarophobic [ that last one's a Leo word ] and occasionally
bombastic beliefs and viewpoints. The net result is similar to
pouring gasoline on a fire - Kim responds in defense, ups the ante,
and the PDSG&OB gang goes at her for another round, etc. etc. A chain
reaction, in the truest sense.

The only reason that I personally have continued with this for so long
is to attempt to stick with and get across my original point. Which
ain't easy, given the back and forth exchanges between Kim and the
boys since this thread began......and the countless attempts to divert
attention from it off onto related (and easily defended) issues.

Anywho, my philosophy is that if you treat someone fairly and they
behave inappropriately, you have a good reason to fault them for it.
If, on the other hand, you pi&& them off first and get them good and
angry, you forfeit that "hey, I'm innocent!" defense - and share in
the blame.

Trolled? Perhaps! But I really don't recall Kim doing anything
incorrect or inappropriate at the outset of this, other than the
reediting of Jim's posts - she seems to have simply wanted to be
treated equally as an amateur. Mike, I believe that you yourself
redid the pool to reduce it to all first names at one point - an
intelligent and compromising way to diffuse the situation. But
diffused it would not be (and not beacuse of Kim's actions...) - so
here we are.

Forgetting for the purpose of this issue the past - um - interchanges
on this subject between Kim and the resident keepers of order and
decorum in this forum, the gross anatomy lessons came later....when
this thread was already running hot!


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo