Len Over 21 wrote:


Do you practice being an

[word deleted]

, Dave? You must...because you're nearly
perfect at it.

Herr Robust is without imperfection in that regard...

Did you ever notice that those who do ice-skating commentary are often
former ice skating champions? that those who do NFL commentary are
usually former professional football players?

I think you've found your area of expertise, Leonard.

Dave K8MN

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand?

At the end of the day, we learn that only Dave has understanding and
everyone else has problems.

Not really. All we've learned is that someone who isn't sure of his
name believes that he is "everyone else".

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:58:25 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

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.

um - I think that putting the banana in the back of the pants might
send a very different message, "Dave". And elicit a very different
reaction.

In front, they'd probably be embarassed by the obvious -um-
masculinity that appears to be showing. Red faces, can't keep the eyes
off it - like a big magnet....

In back - well, they'd hear what the guy had to say alright, but
they's probably never stop laughing when they watched him walk away.
Some may even be horrified....

One of these, though, would cause folks to stare at the guy in a
similar way to that experienced by many well endowed women every day -
you don't think that the banana in the back of the pants' would do
that.....do you?

YMMV!


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Dave Heil wrote:

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.

ROFL! And *that* kind folks, is the retort of the week! Good one Dave.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:58:25 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


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.


um - I think that putting the banana in the back of the pants might
send a very different message, "Dave". And elicit a very different
reaction.

In front, they'd probably be embarassed by the obvious -um-
masculinity that appears to be showing. Red faces, can't keep the eyes
off it - like a big magnet....

In back - well, they'd hear what the guy had to say alright, but
they's probably never stop laughing when they watched him walk away.
Some may even be horrified....

One of these, though, would cause folks to stare at the guy in a
similar way to that experienced by many well endowed women every day -
you don't think that the banana in the back of the pants' would do
that.....do you?

The whole argument is kind of moot, Leo. Some women seek out the
attention, witness padded bras and surgical disfigurement that some
women go through in order to be stared at.

I think the best defense against someone who leers is to simply mention
it. Most will be mortified, and those that aren't are jerks anyhow.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


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

Kim:

In fact, it is all of the above, but, I guess you're entitled to your
delusions.

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

What it is bringing out is other people's disgust. However, anyone who would
have the poor taste to request such a call sign would also not be very likely
to latch on to other people's negative reaction to it, except for whatever sick
pleasure you derive from it.

And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I
used to do that!

Don't look now, Kim, but you're a No-code Technician. There is no way
you can "work DX and pileups" on HF unless you were operating as a
third party using your OM's privileges, and that would also require the
use of his call sign. Oh, yeah, six meters. Sure, I DX and pileups are
possible there, but I rather suspect you were talking about HF. Please
give us a run-down on your OM's VHF DX'ing capabilities. That should
be a good one.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

(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.

Dwight:

Obviously, Riley was responding to Kim's specific inquiry regarding her
own call sign. It is likely that he would have also found those particular
call signs to be of questionable appropriateness in a family-oriented
hobbyist radio service.

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.

The "context" is self-evident. It is a well-known vulgarity referring to a
woman's breasts in a connotation which is generally considered to be
of a sexual nature.

Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except
one, a club call).

Maybe so, but that doesn't make them any less objectionable.

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.

You have just seen me raise the issue of the objectionable nature of those
particular call sign suffixes, regardless of the sex of the holder.

Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?"

I would not presume to speak for Riley -- why don't you ask him?

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?

Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were issued sequentially, there is
no reason for the licensee to keep them and use them on the air if they
are of an objectionable nature. The FCC would certainly honor their
request for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who kept and used such
a call would be subject to the same questions regarding their motives as
is Kim.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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. (snip)


However, given the topic of this discussion (children and the ARS one step
closer to extinction), how is one supposed to know the difference between
the in your face "TIT" and the "TIT" initials? In the end, without a
specific context, it's just a callsign. And how would a callsign bring the
ARS one step closer to extinction?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
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.

The "context" is self-evident. It is a well-
known vulgarity referring to a woman's
breasts in a connotation which is generally
considered to be of a sexual nature. (snip)


The "vulgarity" and "of a sexual nature" is self-evident to you, Larry.
Funk & Wagnals describes "tit" as "teat, breast or nipple." Princeton
University's WordWeb defines "tit" as "either of two soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman" or "the small
projection of a mammary gland." And, of course, both mention a "small
insectivorous bird." Many farm animals have teats or "tits," but most don't
consider them to be "of a sexual nature."


(snip) 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?

Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were
issued sequentially, there is no reason for
the licensee to keep them and use them on
the air if they are of an objectionable nature.
The FCC would certainly honor their request
for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who
kept and used such a call would be subject to
the same questions regarding their motives as
is Kim.


Then you have a lot of aggressive questioning to do. In addition to the
examples given before (containing either "TIT" and "ASS"), I found about a
dozen more with the same suffixes and several dozen more with other
questionable suffixes (GAY, FAG, LEZ, CUM, SEX, and so on). At this stage in
the search, I suspect there may eventually be several hundred callsigns you
might object to. Given that, and the amount of time you've spent just
questioning Kim alone, you may have decades of aggressive questioning still
to do before you finish the entire list. Of course, the more logical
approach would to discuss this with the FCC instead. After all, if getting
rid of "questionable" callsigns in a "family-oriented hobbyist radio
service" is your true goal, that would be the most appropriate, and
effective, way to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Leo" wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
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. (snip)


Your message didn't show up on my server, Kim. So I'll use Leo's message
(thanks, Leo) to post my response. Anyway, yes, I also seem to remember your
callsign wasn't an issue until after you disagreed with Larry and friends.
Only at that point did they decide to focus on your callsign to distract
from the counter-arguments you made. However, regardless of how it started,
that is certainly how your callsign is being used now. It now seems Larry
and some of his friends would rather belittle your callsign than seriously
respond to your comments on various issues. Of course, some, on the other
hand, are simply using your callsign in the same manner as the codswallop of
the typical newsgroup troll (including Larry on occasion).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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