On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:03:48 -0700, Jack Twilley
wrote:

1. Posters here see inconsistency where it doesn't exist.

There is no reason for a 20wpm Extra or a 5wpm Extra to support
code testing just because they passed it. I am a 5wpm Extra, and
I feel that the treaty was the only reason to maintain the test.
I wanted the license bad enough to pass the test, so I passed.
That doesn't mean I think that everyone else should. Trying to
read whether or not someone has passed the code test by their tone
is foolish, and wrapping the entire newsgroup under your "have to
wonder" umbrella is just foolish, which leads me to...

Well, Jack...I dunno how long you've been reading this NG, but I've
been here long enough to have noticed some patterns in other people's
posts. One of them is that trolls from rec.radio.cb who come here to
whine about code testing never post a callsign, frequently post
anonymously using a phony e-mail address, and post messages with a
tone that makes their agenda obvious to even the most casual of
observers. If you think that such reading between the lines is
foolish, you're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that, rather
than foolish, I find it a useful tool for determining which posters
are interested in a serious discussion of an issue and which are
merely trolls that aren't worth wasting the time to reply to.

2. Posters here look down on those who post without callsigns.

Your comment that hams should "be proud" of their license is
foolish, but not as foolish as your justification for callsign
posting expectations -- "have the courtesy to let the rest of us
know who we're talking to". This thing we're using is called
"Usenet". It's been around for a long time, and the primary
technical form of identification for posters is something called
an "email address". It is also traditional to include one's real
name or a pseudonym, often in something called a "signature" which
is appended to their posts. I am using Dr. Evil quotes to make a
point. If you haven't figured it out yet, here it is again from
another direction. If I were calling CQ on 80 meters and using my
email address, you'd be unimpressed. Someone out there could
easily Google my email address to find out my name and other
information and then search the FCC database to find my callsign
and license class, but that's not an acceptable defense for not
using the proper and traditional identification methods. My
callsign shows up in approximately seven Usenet posts across three
newsgroups, none of which include this group. When I speak here,
I address myself as I wish to be addressed, which is by those
forms of identifications, formal and traditional, that are
appropriate to this media. The headers of my posts even include
suggested attributions for replies to my posts. The lack of a
callsign in my posts doesn't negate the value of what I type. It
frankly isn't relevant to any posts -- my license class is
relevant to some posts, but not many -- so I don't see any need to
include that information.

In the case of morphoholic, the issue isn't what his license class is,
but whether or not he even HAS one. He claimed to. Anyone can claim to
have a license. That doesn't mean that he or she does actually have
one. This is a ham radio related newsgroup. Hams know one another by
our calls, not our e-mail addresses or x-trace info or other server
junk that goes into the headers on a usenet message. Most of us here
like to know who we're talking to...and, being hams, we do that by
callsign. I think you'll find plenty of regulars here who will agree
with that.

These comments aren't solely directed at you. You just wrote a post
that pushed two of my buttons. You should only take it personally if
those two items are things you really personally believe.

No, I don't think I'm taking it personally; however, as I said, I
think you'll find that many of the regulars here will agree that, this
being a ham NG, there's a certain courtesy with posting your call to
let others know who they are dealing with. If you choose not to do so,
well, okay...you're not posting messages that border on trollism. If
you were, I wouldn't be wasting my time with a reply. ;-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ