In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


I (W5TIT) have an appropriate callsign (W5TIT). The word "tit" (not the
callsign W5TIT) is not (the word tit) appropriate for use on the amateur
radio bands (but the callsign W5TIT is). And, the word "tit" is *not* used
on the amateur radio bands. Well, not that I (W5TIT) know of anyway. The
callsign W5TIT is used on the amateur radio bands and is quite an
appropriate callsign (W5TIT that is).

How can I (W5TIT) be more appropriate than that?

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Yeah, it's so "appropriate" that Riley Hollingsworth said that your decision to
request such a call sign has the potential to bring the ARS "...one step closer
to extinction."
Somehow, I think I value his judgement much more than yours.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


Oh, I don't know that he had any correspondence with the FCC; in fact I
highly doubt it. The Riley Hollingsworth email was a direct response from
him to me, and Larry has treasured it ever since

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

There's no doubt about that! It takes pride of place among my archive of gems
from my years on rrap, and there are very few of them, indeed! I hereby thank
you for providing it, and subsequently verifying it's authenticity.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

[THIS IS THE PART WHERE KIM
QUOTES THE PART OF RILEY'S
E-MAIL WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
OF THIS THREAD:] (snip)

(snip) While that's true, just because
a person has a right to do something
doesn't mean it's right to do it on every
occasion. While the call sign may fit the
constitution, for every instance where
a parent or uncle or grandparent doesn't
want a young person to get involved in
Ham Radio because of something they
hear on the bands, then you have taken
the ARS one step closer to extinction.
Then we can sit around and debate what
happened to all those Amateur
frequencies that industry bought at
auction---debating, of course, on the
internet and cellular because that'll be
all we have left. The first amendment will
still be alive and well, just as it is now,
tho, if that's any consolation. (snip)


Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first
read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to
this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this
admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT
(CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS
(TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar
callsigns, are not exactly unique.

Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning
to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I
can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out
of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign.

Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except
one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from
Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters
"TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit
those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would
you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim,
if any one of them were active in this newsgroup?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first
read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to
this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this
admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT
(CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS
(TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar
callsigns, are not exactly unique.


Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.

Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it. Kind of like when I say something that would--under normal
conditions--stand on its own without the chance of drawing fi just
because it was me that said it, there is disagreement that will be found for
it.

I think it's all that "other stuff" that comes into play. Riley was
probably closer to having a real opinion about my callsign than Larry or
anyone else here is. He was honest and forthright about it, and dignified
in his response. Larry seems to think it's "disrespectful" to disagree with
Riley's opinion--why I don't know. Riley is a person just like anyone else
and is entitled to his opinion. And, since the ARS is no closer to
exctinction today than it was prior to my ever getting a license, I totally
disagree with Riley.


Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning
to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I
can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child
out
of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign.


Oh, I can. If they're prone to "protecting" their little tyke from the
evils of the world--in every way but actually dealing with the little tyke,
i.e., making it everyone else's fault but their own that their little tyke
is actually a little monster.


Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all
except
one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from
Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters
"TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit
those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would
you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with
Kim,
if any one of them were active in this newsgroup?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it
is not inappropriate. It's nothing more than a vanity callsign that brings
out other peoples' vanity (here in this newsgroup anyway) way more than it
even expresses my own And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I
used to do that!

Kim W5TIT

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first
read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to
this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this
admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT
(CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS
(TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar
callsigns, are not exactly unique.


Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.

Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it.

The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to
support your observation, Kim.

Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign"
that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the
callsign):

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him
- it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package',
as it were.

Dave, in his recent posts, appears to harbour similar feelings

Kind of like when I say something that would--under normal
conditions--stand on its own without the chance of drawing fi just
because it was me that said it, there is disagreement that will be found for
it.

I think it's all that "other stuff" that comes into play. Riley was
probably closer to having a real opinion about my callsign than Larry or
anyone else here is. He was honest and forthright about it, and dignified
in his response. Larry seems to think it's "disrespectful" to disagree with
Riley's opinion--why I don't know. Riley is a person just like anyone else
and is entitled to his opinion. And, since the ARS is no closer to
exctinction today than it was prior to my ever getting a license, I totally
disagree with Riley.


Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning
to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I
can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child
out
of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign.


Oh, I can. If they're prone to "protecting" their little tyke from the
evils of the world--in every way but actually dealing with the little tyke,
i.e., making it everyone else's fault but their own that their little tyke
is actually a little monster.

Anyone who believes that they can protect their youngsters from bad
language and sexual references by censoring what they see is deluding
themselves. They will hear worse things at the local schooltard than
they will on TV, radio or (gasp) RRAP....



Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all
except
one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from
Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters
"TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit
those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would
you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with
Kim,
if any one of them were active in this newsgroup?

They will defiantly state "of course not - we treat everyone equally".
lol.



Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it
is not inappropriate. It's nothing more than a vanity callsign that brings
out other peoples' vanity (here in this newsgroup anyway) way more than it
even expresses my own And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I
used to do that!

Kim W5TIT

Jim,

I sense a fair amount of hostility in your reply - I see that you are
even taking issue with the statements that I made in agreement or
support with several of your earlier points. I can also see that to
expect objectivity from you on this issue would be impossible as well,
as you continue to hold up your "standards" in defense of your
actions, even where they would not be compromised at all. You also
adhere to the principle that it is only Kim's callsign that you find
"inappropriate", yet you have also stated that this decision was based
upon your consideration of not only the callsign, but other factors:
(the following statement was with reference to your opinion of the
appropriateness of the callsign):

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

This statement points to a much deeper issue than just a simple
"inappropriate" callsign.

The use of one's own moralistic views and beliefs to deny the rights
of another is "inappropriate" too, Jim.

But, if you wish to further moralize upon this issue, I refer you to
the ultimate authority, with all sincerity and best wishes:

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can
and the wisdom to know the difference

May you find peace and comfort with the world, Jim.

73 es 30, Leo



On 20 Jan 2004 14:28:12 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

I thought I answered this, but apparently not. I'll try again...

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 17 Jan 2004 00:57:34 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

For some reason, this discussion keeps going off on a tangent from the
core "issue" that began our discourse.

There are several issues, not just one.

OK - I'm listening.

Perhaps I haven't stated it
clearly enough, or during the discussion the original issue has become
clouded.

Let's see what you've got, then.

Let's go.

I have responded to your comments below, but I fear that we will
continue forever if we are not discussing exactly the same issue.

I understand that, due to your standards, you find Kim's callsign
inappropriate.

That's correct. It's also an issue to some people.

OK - fair enough. And it shouldn't be.

That's a moral judgement on your part. You're declaring what should
and should not be an issue to other people. IOW, you're telling them
what to think and what their standards should be when you say it
shouldn't be an issue.

Your personal standards are
your own - no one else's. Let's clear that one off - agreed?

My personal standards are shared by other people. I don't know
how many, but if there's even one other person who shares my
standards, then they're *not* "no one else's".

No issue there - that is entirely your right.

Some people say it isn't. Not you, but some others.

Others may, but who cares - it's none of their business.

Why not?

I also
understand that you do not wish to use it in any of your posts.

Also correct. And also an issue to some people, who say that my deletion of
Kim's call is "wrong".

Let's focus on that one, and agree that deleting her call from your
post is necessary for you to due to your standards. I have no issue
there at all. If you don't want to use it, OK. Let's clear this one
off too - agreed?

I won't use it in my posts. I'm not legally required to, either.

Again, no issue there - I respect that.

For clarity, I'll restate it in clear and concise wording:

Kim feels that eliminating just her callsign from your post was
unfair, as it singled her out. I agree.

And I disagree. Kim singled herself out by choosing that callsign. As you are
aware.

Yes she did - and quite intentionally, too, as she has stated.

Then she needs to accept the consequences of that action.

That wasn't, however, what I was saying in my statement above. Simply
that Kim feels that you singled her out too, by omitting just her call
from the list.

She and you know exactly why her call was omitted.

Forget the inappropriatenesss of the call for a moment....

Why? It's the cause of the omission.

do you see where she might get that feeling?

Sure - she wants to be included in the list even though she
disregards the list's standards.

Would finding a compromise
whereby neither your standards nor Kim's feelings - such as removing
all of the callsigns and listing only names for all participants -
have not been a fairer way to handle this situation for all concerned?

No, it wouldn't.

Honestly, I dont agree with you on this point. It would have been an
easy compromise to make, and woulld potentially have offended no one.

It would have offended me and anyone who agreed with my standards.

More on this further down in the post!

That's the only issue that I am discussing, Jim.

No, it isn't, but we'll get to that later. Right now, let's discuss that issue.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that I should either include
everyone's callsign, or no one's.

Now since I don't wish to include Kim's callsign, that leaves only the option
of including no one's callsign, in order to accomodate Kim's feelings.

Agreed - in order to treat everyone equally, that would be the only
other option available given the situation.

That means everyone must suffer in order to avoid the possibility of
Kim's feelings being hurt.

But what about everyone else's feelings, including mine? I want my call listed.

I would feel disrespected to be listed by name rather than callsign or name and
callsign on an amateur radio newsgroup.

Yes, and I believe that Kim feels exactly the same way, Jim.

Then let her choose an appropriate callsign.

For the
same reason as you, I suppose - she is also a ham. (She does not feel
that her call is in any way wrong, remember.)

You're saying her feelings are more important than my standards and my feelings.

Maybe Dee, Dave, Carl, Dwight, Jim, Jim, Steve, et. al also want *their*
callsigns listed, and would feel disrespected if I listed by name only.

Don't the feelings of everyone else count?

Of course they do - but are you sure that these people world be that
upset by this?

Are you sure they aren't?

Why should the people who chose appropriate callsigns not get them
listed in order to appease those who chose inappropriate ones?

(except Dave, of course - he appears, from his recent
correspondence, to be annoyed that Kim is still breathing... )

Not at all.

In fact, if it had been my post, I would have revised it to names only
immediately after Kim's original complaint.

But it wasn't your post. It was my post.

And seen what comments
came back next. If I had several legitimate complaints (without the
agendas that we have seen in several recent posts {not yours, Jim!)
which obviously relate to Kim personally rather than just her
call...), then yes there would be no other alternative than to put the
calls back - but I would have written and offered Kim the option of
going by name only or dropping out before I went ahead. At least I'd
be able to tell Kim that I tried to fix it for her, but it didn't work
out with the rest of the group.

So you'd go through all that and wind up with the calls in the post because
some of us would complain.

Maybe it's just me, but I would try first to resolve her complaint if
possible, out of respect for her as a fellow amateur.

That's nice - but by doing so, you are validating her choice of
callsign. I won't do that.

I prefer
compromise whenever possible - not compromising my standards, but
finding a way to achieve a balance.

My standards say that your compromise involves compromising my standards.

Note also, Kim said that if I wouldn't use her callsign, she didn't want to be on the list..

True, but that was after the had become frustrated with trying to
solve this issue.

She could solve it very easily by choosing an appropriate callsign.

Your rights and
standards are not at question here.

Yes, they are. I've been told that "it's not my place" to determine whether a
callsign is appropriate or not. I've been told that my actions are "wrong".

As you are aware.

I did state that it is in fact no one individual's place to determine
what is or is not appropriate for the ARS - that role belongs to the
regulators, and to the will of the majority of us, I suppose.

I recall being told it was not *MY* place to judge. And I disagree.
It's my place to judge in terms of what I will and will not validate.

Each of us is however completely in charge of determining what is
appropriate for us as an individual, however. No question there.

Jim, my intent was not to criticize your standards

Tell it to those who used words like "prejudice" to describe
my standards.

- simply to point
out that perhaps a more amicable solution to this issue was possible
without compromising anyone's standards - finding a common ground for
all.

That's it - that's my point.


That's fine. And I disagree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it
is not inappropriate.

It, like those other call signs mentioned, is in very bad taste. But
then what else should we expect of you?

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all
except
one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from
Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters
"TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit
those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would
you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with
Kim,
if any one of them were active in this newsgroup?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of
"getting in someone's face". If a person were to choose it because there
name was something like "Tonya Irene Tidwell" and they wanted their
initials, it is not vulgar. However parents are often careful not to name
their children such that the initials would give rise to unwelcome teasing
and other problems.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all

except

one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from
Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters
"TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit
those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would
you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with

Kim,

if any one of them were active in this newsgroup?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of
"getting in someone's face".

Which is the exact reason kim chose that call. Nothing more than to call
attention to herself. Some people have to resort to those type of things
for any recgonition.

Leo wrote:

You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not
understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in
the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one
morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in
conversation.

Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana ) and see if
they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking
about the day before......

Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get
the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the
rear of his pants.

Dave K8MN