![]() |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) Unfortunately, the image is objectionable in any context, and it's effect on the ARS has the potential to be exactly as Mr. Hollingsworth predicted. If you say so, Larry. I, on the other hand, don't have the time right now to continue this. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: The days when the nests were all empty by the time Mom and Dad hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And that's in "typical" America. That may be typical in your world. It's typical in much of the USA. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. Do *you* have reason to meet such people, Dwight? How many "parent's nights" have you spent recently at the local elementary school? In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. But you've spent a good part of your adult life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight? Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic situation here. It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age group have young children. Just among my family, friends and acquaintances, the number of families with at least one parent over 40 and at least one child under 10 exceeds 40%. Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5 children ranging in age from toddlers to teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the point). Would you then say I was right and Kim's call was inappropriate? Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her callsign and making something out of it? You're avoiding the question. Lets not discuss hypothetical situations, Jim. Why not? Anything can be justified or condemned using that. Not true at all. And your source is? Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period. My 49+ years has resulted in meeting a lot of 40+ parents of small children. Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged". Forty or fifty is certainly not young. Not old either. Both. I say neither is appropriate. Appropriate for what? Appropriate for the amateur radio service, which should be G-rated. As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what is appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas of what is appropriate. Either a call such as Kim's is appropriate for the ARS or it isn't. If you have no objection to it, you're saying it's appropriate, and therefore the rest of us should accept it. Well, I don't. Period. You and Kim keep using the term "vukgar" actually, "vulgar" rather than addressing whether it's "appropriate". I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times. And you think it is. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Alex Flinsch
writes: gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse. Alex / AB2RC You know, Alex, if Kim had used that as her justification, and had never mentioned her "well-endowed" figure and the dare she took from friends to request that call sign, I might have accepted that reason. However, I would have suggested that "TET" would have been even better. Her only problem then may have been an adverse reaction by Vietnam-Era Veterans. It was Kim who raised the issues of her physical characteristics in regard to her call sign, for the sole purpose of calling attention to them. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Harold Burton"
writes: I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC. Harold KD5SAK Harold: Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd have to say, none at all. You just Keep Drinking 5 Scotches And Kool-Aids. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Harold Burton" writes: I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC. Harold KD5SAK Harold: Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd have to say, none at all. No problem or disappointment, my own obsessions don't run that way either. but there are probably other minds out there that might react with a titter (no pun intended) to a simple alpha-numeric identifier. Harold KD5SAK |
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. Do *you* have reason to meet such people, Dwight? How many "parent's nights" have you spent recently at the local elementary school? My wife has a degree in elementary education and has taught off and on for twenty-five years. She is now back in school getting another degree in secondary education. She graduates in a few months and will then start her masters degree classes this coming summer. But you've spent a good part of your adult life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight? Yes, around thousands of active duty military personnel and civilian employees of the military. And now I have to cut this short, Jim. I'm starting a new business and it's really eating up my time at the moment. Things should settle down in a few days. Until then, this newsgroup will have to take a back seat. Take care. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
JJ wrote in message ...
William wrote: JJ wrote in message ... Alex Flinsch wrote: In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote: the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally, but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse. Alex / AB2RC Are you kidding? I doubt she can even send Morse. You don't have to send - just copy. So how are you going to converse with another Morse station, assuming you are in the CW portion of the band, if you don't send? All of the portions of the band are CW portions. Reread the post, it was talking about sending. This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing. The exam is receive only. |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. Do *you* have reason to meet such people, Dwight? How many "parent's nights" have you spent recently at the local elementary school? My wife has a degree in elementary education and has taught off and on for twenty-five years. She is now back in school getting another degree in secondary education. She graduates in a few months and will then start her masters degree classes this coming summer. Doesn't answer the question, Dwight! But you've spent a good part of your adult life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight? Yes, around thousands of active duty military personnel and civilian employees of the military. The vast majority of whom were under 40, let alone 50, right? How much of the US military (other than senior officers) is over 40? And now I have to cut this short, Jim. I'm starting a new business and it's really eating up my time at the moment. Things should settle down in a few days. Until then, this newsgroup will have to take a back seat. Take care. Good luck in the new venture! I dare say that if it has anything to do with young (10 and under) children, you may be surprised at how many of them have at least one parent in the 40-50 y.o. range. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
William wrote:
All of the portions of the band are CW portions. True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the band, you must answer in CW. Reread the post, it was talking about sending. This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing. It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it state the purpose of the group is Morse testing? The exam is receive only. So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it? You must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of. And I still stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she can't copy it either. |
JJ wrote in message ...
William wrote: All of the portions of the band are CW portions. True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the band, you must answer in CW. Unless you are an amateur in a foreign country where freedoms abound. Reread the post, it was talking about sending. This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing. It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it state the purpose of the group is Morse testing? The exam is receive only. So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it? Dunno. That always puzzled me. Just one of the many oddities of the inventive licensing system. You must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of. If you're listening to ULX, you've got bigger problems than CB radio. You probably really hated passing that $250 over to him. And I still stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she can't copy it either. You can stand behind your modified statement all day long. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com