Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

You know, Dwight, I'm not so sure.
I don't recall Jim ever making an
issue of the issue, except for ommitting
the callsign. (snip)



By omitting the callsign, he made it an issue to be discussed. Were we all
supposed to notice it and say nothing?

Victim mentality, Dwight! You and Jim get into a wizzing contest, and
Kim gets her amusement by reading the posts.

It's really too bad that you cannot avoid it, but I think Kim is right.
That callsign seems to have some irresistable effect on some people. And
you just can't help it. You don't have the power to resist.


What would *you* have him do? I'm
a little confused about what some
people want out of this thread. (snip)



I wouldn't "have him do" anything. There has been no demands made of him
from me. He's free to do what he wants, just as we're free to comment on
what he does.

What do you think of her reasoning
behind getting that callsign? (snip)


As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings
were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. I've told Kim what I think, and
that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I
certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a
several year period as some in this newsgroup have done.


Then it should be a null argument. You should not care why Jim omits
her callsign, and it isn't your job to judge Jim.

Some people might just care what the reasonings are though.

And as for repeating ones self, you shouldn't "have to", but you are.
The power of of that callsign is simply too much to resist.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

It's really too bad that you cannot avoid
it, but I think Kim is right. That callsign
seems to have some irresistable effect
on some people. And you just can't help
it. You don't have the power to resist.


Nobody said anything about not being able to resist, Mike. It was an issue
(no more than any other issue discussed in this newsgroup), and I simply
responded to it.


Then it should be a null argument. You
should not care why Jim omits her
callsign, and it isn't your job to judge
Jim. (snip)


And I've been careful not to judge Jim. If Jim feels otherwise, he's sadly
mistaken.


(snip) The power of of that callsign is
simply too much to resist.


You're posting to this thread. Do you find the callsign too much to
resist?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

It's really too bad that you cannot avoid
it, but I think Kim is right. That callsign
seems to have some irresistable effect
on some people. And you just can't help
it. You don't have the power to resist.



Nobody said anything about not being able to resist, Mike. It was an issue
(no more than any other issue discussed in this newsgroup), and I simply
responded to it.



Then it should be a null argument. You
should not care why Jim omits her
callsign, and it isn't your job to judge
Jim. (snip)



And I've been careful not to judge Jim. If Jim feels otherwise, he's sadly
mistaken.



(snip) The power of of that callsign is
simply too much to resist.



You're posting to this thread. Do you find the callsign too much to
resist?

I pop in and out of the thread as need be. Remember I'm kind of the
group Cassandra! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Victim mentality, Dwight! You and Jim get into a wizzing contest, and
Kim gets her amusement by reading the posts.


Well, not amusement...really...Mike. I mean, I wouldn't be in this
newsgroup--in general--were it not for the amusement: true. BUT, not
amusement specifically about my callsign. In fact, I find the whole issue
of debate over my callsign more on the "I can't believe" it side; although I
do recognize that, to some people, it really *is* that big a deal.
Personally, I feel sorry for those folks.


It's really too bad that you cannot avoid it, but I think Kim is right.
That callsign seems to have some irresistable effect on some people. And
you just can't help it. You don't have the power to resist.


I think it's just that, Mike. A power thing. I mean, after all, why the
chagrin over a callsign; and all the angst; and all the broohaha were it not
for wanting to be miserable about something. Call it stupid of me but,
again, I really don't see the huge issue with it and never have.

I enjoy the deliberate ignorance of the reason I got the call...which at its
root was purely on a dare from some local hams. Never in a million years
did I know of this newsgroup, or even really believe it would get the
attention that it has. I mean, think about it: I was a fairly new ham and
had no real motivation to be on HF so didn't think of it from that
perspective (of using it on a wide distribution basis) and hadn't even heard
of any such thing as a "newsgroup" so didn't think of that venue, either.
For me, ham radio was a "local" sport and everyone already knew me here, so
it wasn't like I was setting out to get a callsign to "make a name" for
myself. Good grief, ask Jim Haynie or any Section Leadership what a rabble
rouser I've been--long before I ever got a callsign to go along with it!


Then it should be a null argument. You should not care why Jim omits
her callsign, and it isn't your job to judge Jim.


For me, it wasn't about "omitting the callsign." It was about editing a
post and taking out attributes that could (*could* mind you) be important to
that specific post. I pointed that out long ago in this particular debate
(under "The Pool" I believe), but Jim, et al, chose to ignore that aspect.
Jim made it about my callsign--at least I think he did. I was all about
that he'd been taking my callsign out of posts that *I* had posted. I
hadn't even noticed this for a long, long time. But, when it was pointed
out, I picked a post and took attributes out of it; more to make an
immediate point than anything else.


Some people might just care what the reasonings are though.

And as for repeating ones self, you shouldn't "have to", but you are.
The power of of that callsign is simply too much to resist.

- Mike KB3EIA -


The reasonings, as stated above, are quite innocent. The plusses (and, yes,
I do consider them plusses--I ain't a liar), are incidental amusements that
came along afterward. But, look at it this way: just as every other ham who
has a "questionable" callsign and is not in this newsgroup therefore does
not entertain the flak, so could I have been. But, I found this
newsgroup... LOL

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:


The reasonings, as stated above, are quite innocent. The plusses (and, yes,
I do consider them plusses--I ain't a liar), are incidental amusements that
came along afterward. But, look at it this way: just as every other ham who
has a "questionable" callsign and is not in this newsgroup therefore does
not entertain the flak, so could I have been. But, I found this
newsgroup... LOL

Oh.... you mean this isn't the aversion therapy meeting? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I think it's just that, Mike. A power thing. I mean, after all, why the
chagrin over a callsign; and all the angst; and all the broohaha were it not
for wanting to be miserable about something.
Call it stupid of me but...

Okay.

I really don't see the huge issue with it and never have.

Precisely.

I enjoy the deliberate ignorance of the reason I got the call...which at its
root was purely on a dare from some local hams.

A dare based upon what, Kim? You've already provided us your
motivation.

Dave K8MN