Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Hoo boy indeed. Are you in disagreement with my statement?

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

Raisin or bran muffin? Bran.

There's a question for you along with the answer. No input on your part
is necessary.

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.

Then when did you start calling him "Dave"? I think you're beginning to
get tangled in your own words. Maybe you'd like to take another look at
your post.


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

"Vulgar" works for me. From the Random House College Dictionary:
"vulgar adj. 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding
or taste; unrefined; crude.

I also like "tacky" and "tasteless". There have been a number of other
words used to describe it.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!

I have.

If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I

Smiley aside, you did suggest that I start another thread.

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there.......

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Then why do you continue to make comments on that particular issue?

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!

In essence, "Leo", that is your point, that Jim should avoid hurting
Kim's feelings by not using her call, the call that he finds
objectionable.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada.

Speaking of personal prerogatives - that one is mine. I don't need
you analyzing my call to see if it meets your standards of decency,
"Dave"....

You don't need?

Sorry to add to the list of things that you don't know.

There are many things unknown to me, "Leo". Not knowing your call, your
location or your name aren't things high on my list.

As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

You think?

Quite often

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.

Just tell us how you interpreted it and we'll proceed from there.

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

I use microphones, keyboards and keys on the air, "Leo". I don't don't
use any of them in my amateur radio operations to lessen the pleasure of
others.

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

Thousands? I think you vastly overestimate the readership of this
newsgroup--and this isn't "on the air", Leo. Usenet isn't amateur
radio.

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

I don't know what the "Duh" signifies, "Leo". You seemed to have
problems understanding my lack of obligation to use Kim's vulgar
callsign. Nothing requires me to use it anywhere.

That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

That ain't the standard that I referred to, Dave. Here it is again,
in case you missed it the first time:

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....
That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

Flexible as in yours to choose to adhere to at your own
convenience........

Let's see. I don't approve of Kim's callsign here. I don't approve of
Kim's callsign on the air. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a
car license plate. I wouldn't approve of Kim's callsign on a cap. What
you'd like to do is take an item from Paul Segal's code, an item which
is very specific and change it to suit your argument. It can't be
done. It very clearly says "operates". Now I'm quite confident that
"operates" doesn't mean "operates heavy equipment", "operates a computer
connected to the internet", "operates a convenience store" or "operates
on a patient".

You persist in calling my views inconsiderate. I don't agree. I've
considered. Now you're a "Leo"-come-lately so you've apparently not
been exposed to Kim's views on proper social behavior. If you like, you
can hit the Google archives and check them out. I happen to view Kim's
choice of callsigns as inconsiderate toward the whole of amateur radio.
It is simply another in a series on Kim's part, in which she thumbs her
nose at the world.

Dave K8MN