I don't think the request of a sexually-suggestive and clearly offensive
amateur radio callsign requires much work

http://www.chinatibettravel.net/cnbi...tailed_Tit.jpg

Leo wrote:

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

That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of
the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a
newsgroup post?

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

I salute Jim's wisdom in knowing the difference and his courage in
changing the things he can.

Dave K8MN

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:42:14 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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

That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of
the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a
newsgroup post?

I'm sorry that you're having difficulty interpreting the generally
accepted concepts of human social interaction, or the precise subject
of my original objection and subsequent discussion on this subject,
"Dave". My intent was to illustrate, not to educate.


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

I salute Jim's wisdom in knowing the difference and his courage in
changing the things he can.

Of that I am certain, Dave


Dave K8MN

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
--Isaac Asimov

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:42:14 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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

That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of
the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a
newsgroup post?

I'm sorry that you're having difficulty interpreting the generally
accepted concepts of human social interaction, or the precise subject
of my original objection and subsequent discussion on this subject,
"Dave". My intent was to illustrate, not to educate.

Let's be open here, "Leo". You aren't sorry and I'm not having
difficulty. You wrote of denying "rights". I responded to that
comment.
If you didn't really mean "rights", you should have chosen another term.
If you're intent was to illustrate something other than what you stated,
your illustration fails.


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

I salute Jim's wisdom in knowing the difference and his courage in
changing the things he can.

Of that I am certain, Dave

It was kind of you to provide the quote.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT the Texas twit wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message
...

Leo wrote:


...and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the
H$%% is a decond?? I dunno).......


Don't worry about it Leo, anyone who can't spell a word more than one
way simply has no imegintion.



ROFLMAO!! Hey, Leo? Another irony...!!!!

Kim W5TIT


It's a joke stupid.

Kim W5TIT wrote:




It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone
sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference
to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some
other reason?

"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

And how would a callsign bring the
ARS one step closer to extinction?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't
want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of.

It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone
sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Others disagree with that. And I think if you really believed it were
"totally
innocuous unless some sat there and thought about it for a bit", you
would
not have chosen it, because you've said it was chosen in part for the
reactions it would get.

And, if must
"finally realize" anything about a callsign, then it is definitely because
they took their own path getting there; not because anyone led them there.

I disagree. The callsign starts them on the path. Otherwise you would
not
have chosen it.

To make that a bearer's responsibility to "the community of man" is
ridiculous and I don't wear that

[expletive deleted]

You may refuse to "wear" it, Kim, but communities live and die on how
well
their members accept their responsibilities to the community. One
reason for
so many laws that seem silly or stupid is that they are an attempt to
get
people to take on their responsibilities to the community.

Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would
keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well,
I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being
involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third)
impression involved such callsigns.

Then, they'd best just keep their kids out of sports, school, movies,
churches; in fact, just lock 'em up and keep 'em safe.

Why? In my experience, they will not encounter things like your
callsign
from adults in sports, school, or church. At least not in any of them
that
I have been a part of in the last 10-15 years. Movies are not only
rated
by content but kids under certain ages are not permitted to see
certain
movies because of content - a good example of the community taking
responsibility.

The responsibility
of the parent is to teach what is vulgar and what is not.

Not just the parents. (Each child has at least two). It's also the
community's responsibility - meaning everyone in the community.

My callsign is not vulgar.

Not to you. Others differ on that.

I say it's inappropriate.

The implication that

[body parts]

are something to hide, be
embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar
act.

Would you then say that they are no different from, say, a hand or a
nose?
Would you say that it's always appropriate to display them, talk about
them,
etc., regardless of the context or the situation? That's where you're
argument
leads.

as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word

[word deleted]

from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em.

That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it
from your callsign.

See first sentence above.

You mean the one about it being totally innocuous? See my response.

But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her
something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such
words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior.
And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate
behavior.


See second sentence above.

The one about the path? See my response.

Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though
they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking
irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or
similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are
portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc.


And, it is not the responsibility of "the community" to see that a kid
doesn't learn all that stuff and think it's attractive.

Yes, it is. That's one major reason to be a part of a community - so
that
the next generation can be raised in an environment that passes on the
best of the previous generation's values and standards.

Communities can only exist and thrive if the people in them are better
off
being a part of them, *and* realize and fullfil their responsibilities
to the community, as well as demanding their rights.

It's the
responsibility of the parents, family, and anyone personally involved with
the raising and upbringing of a kid.

How can they do that if the community works against them? It's
*everyone's*
responsibility, in varying degrees.


I taught my kids that all "that stuff"
was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive and
lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely
accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and needed
to work a lot harder with the other.

You just proved what I'm saying is valid.

It's clear that they were both exposed to things that were
inappropriate or even
potentially harmful, but one was able to resist and the other wasn't.

Here's an analogy:

Almost everyone has an "Aunt Edna" who has smoked three packs of
Camels a day since he was 12 and who is now hale and healthy in his
90s. And almost everyone also has an "Uncle Bill" who passed away at a
young age from a combination of health problems brought about by
smoking. A lot of people - particularly smokers - remember Aunt Edna
and forget all about Uncle Bill. Some even claim
that Aunt Edna somehow proves that smoking isn't that bad for you.

But what the Aunt Edna/Uncle Bill story proves is that a few people
are very
resistant to, and a few others very susceptible to, health problems
caused by smoking. And most people are somewhere in the middle. More
important, you can't tell ahead of time who is going to wind up like
Aunt Edna and who is going to wind up like Uncle Bill. So the
intelligent, reasonable, logical, human thing to do is to act as if
everyone has Uncle Bill's susceptibility, not Aunt Edna's resistance.

They *both* saw the same "community."

No, they did not. Communities are constantly changing. I suspect what
really happened was that one was simply more resistant to certain
things and the other more susceptible.

I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected
to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed,
'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by
adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few
beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to
keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes
fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is
much more likely to learn that lesson.

That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they are
doing.

No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors
as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because
the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do".

Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what
they are preaching against than someone who's never been there.

The adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke
grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told
how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves
ingested substances that were all those things.

The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it.

Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly.

But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion.

That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when
it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer
keeps on making the mistakes.

Here, you were
sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the evils
as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored the
value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like.

That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not
as I do",
they use the adult's behavior as an excuse. That's not mature, adult
reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when
someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a
lot of fun.

You cannot always treat children as if they are adults in smaller
bodies. To do so is inappropriate and potentially very harmful.

*Anyone* who thinks
kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or
listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is
around--and
I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics.

But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their
presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when
they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all
behavior is appropriate in all contexts.

The good work of their parents, no doubt.

And their community.

Pffttt.

What does that mean? Would you rather have them talk that way all the
time, in all contexts?

With regard to

[body parts]


they can be a work of art, a tool of health, the target of the expression of
love, or represent some evil, twisted, sense of wrongdoing.

Yep - it all depends on the context. In some contexts their
appropriate, in others their not.

A thumb is usually innocuous. A nose is usually innocuous. Thumbing
one's nose isn't.

I choose the
beauty of

[body parts]

..--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I
would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or photo,
etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful.

It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it
appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let
adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health
care is a different context
than trying on clothes.

Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the
bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though
everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are
called, etc.


It's your expression of "those body parts" that, to someone like me, worries
me.

Why?

Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible.

They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE.

"Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and
both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at the
doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is pulling
their pants down in public--it is quite not OK.

Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts
that you say must be spoken of, right?

Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not
usually appropriate in public?

However, in the right
circumstances both could be exactly the opposite. If a doctor--and this has
been done--is about to rape someone, then it's evil.

Of course. But that's not the point. The action described is only
appropriate in a doctor's office if it's medically required.

And, I can think of
nothing better I would love to do to someone like Saddam Hussein, than to
moon him with a thousand milliion asses; or even just one: mine.

Again, an extreme that proves *my* point.

Sad but true.

The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately.

Yep. You're exactly right.

Well, there you have it.

However, it seems that your "act appropriately"
and mine are two entirely different things.

I sure hope so!

And, I'm done--sigh, once
again--discussing my callsign.

Maybe.

It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's
mine.

That's your opinion. Here's mine:

It's inappropriate for the ARS.

It helps the ARS move one step closer to extinction.

Period.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

Dwight, you previously said you didn't
know any parents who would keep
their kids out of ham radio over a
callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty
of parents who would not support their
kids' being involved in ham radio if their
first (or second, or third) impression
involved such callsigns. (snip)


Really? Can you show even one example of someone who has kept their kid
out of Amateur Radio because of Kim's callsign, or any of the callsigns I've
listed over the last couple of days? I haven't seen one person of the child
rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup.
Instead, I see old men, some too old to even have young, impressionable,
grandkids, in a newsgroup acting like hearing the word "tit" was the shock
of their life. I'm not buying it, Jim. This whole debate has a ring of false
indignation around it. Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person
hearing it, makes it. I don't think tits are vulgar, and I hope kids don't
think that (if they do, someone certainly failed to educate them properly).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Both you and Dwight must lead
sheltered lives. More people use
the word "tit" in the derogatory,
vulgar manner than use it in the
neutral, clinical (snip)


You're absolutely right, Dee. I do live in an environment where tits,
breasts, and other words to describe the human body are not outright, and
immediately, derogatory or vulgar - only a certain context makes them so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Leo" wrote:

Well said, Dwight!


As was intended. Thank you, Leo.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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