We all know the rule isn't enforced strictly. But it's still an interesting question (to some of us) to figure out exactly what the rule means, anyway. In this case, if you hadn't made that first transmission, "KG5GPK listening", then the other two transmissions would have clearly been legal. A "talk" followed 7 minutes later by a transmission with ID is not a problem. But when you change the scenario to have a properly ID'd transmission at the beginning, does that make it illegal? It seems non-intuitive that adding an extra ID transmission turns a legal scenario into an illegal one, doesn't it? To refresh the memory, check out 97.119(a): Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions. I guess the crucial point for the lawyers to argue is whether all three transmissions were part of the same "communication", as the word is used in 97.119(a). If they were all three in the same communication, then you failed to ID at least every 10 minutes during a communication. If you can argue that the "KG6GPK listening" was part of a separate "communication", then the other two transmissions might be legal. I'm not sure I buy that.