"Len Over 21" wrote:

With all that pure dielectric around,
it is a wonder that the Puritans can
conduct themselves properly...enough
to get a circulating electric current. :-)


LOL! One of your best yet, Len.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Leo wrote:

My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to
expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just
her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have
not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts,
as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her
as less than equal. Period.

Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in
her post of 05/23/2000:

From Kim's post

Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the
call?
Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as
it has.
Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what
Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona.

Back to me:

Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply
allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite
frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep.

While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent,
and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one
subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here
long enough!


And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not
based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes:

Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and
couldn't
Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first
sarcastic remark
Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity
callsign. I
Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my
Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign
that would
Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I
would get
Kim K5TIT if I could.

Back to me:

There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read
it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The
callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or
small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with
it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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)


And in kim's case, where the callsign was choosen specifically to get a
reaction to the word "tit", that puts it in that context.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:27 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Leo wrote:

My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to
expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just
her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have
not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts,
as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her
as less than equal. Period.

Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in
her post of 05/23/2000:

From Kim's post

Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the
call?
Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as
it has.
Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what
Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona.

Back to me:

Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply
allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite
frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep.

While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent,
and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one
subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here
long enough!


And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not
based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes:

Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and
couldn't
Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first
sarcastic remark
Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity
callsign. I
Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my
Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign
that would
Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I
would get
Kim K5TIT if I could.

Back to me:

There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read
it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The
callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or
small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with
it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts.

Tifted tutmouses? I think I saw one of them last summer!

Mike, you may well be correct in your analysis - a callsign such as
that one could well be used in many different ways (troll being one of
them). Troll itself has different connotations - it could be an
icebreaker ,convesation starter, or usenet WMD - depending on its use,
and the actions of the user.

My arguement has from the beginning focussed on a very specific part
of this overall issue - the exclusion of only one call from a list,
while leaving the others intact. The reason being - if the folks who
complain so vehemently here believe that Kim's
call/behaviour/language/whatever are obscene, inappropriate, high in
transfats or otherwise detrimental to the sanctity of the group, then
the appropriate thing to do would be to ignore or killfile her, and be
done with it. Why would anyone wilfully and intentionally annoy her
by intentionally removing her call from each post time and time again?
Unless there are other agendas....like to elicit a predictable
reaction, perhaps.....

I suspect that some of the folks here are using the issue of her call
as a springboard to voice their pedantic, didactic, sanctimonious,
gynomammarophobic [ that last one's a Leo word ] and occasionally
bombastic beliefs and viewpoints. The net result is similar to
pouring gasoline on a fire - Kim responds in defense, ups the ante,
and the PDSG&OB gang goes at her for another round, etc. etc. A chain
reaction, in the truest sense.

The only reason that I personally have continued with this for so long
is to attempt to stick with and get across my original point. Which
ain't easy, given the back and forth exchanges between Kim and the
boys since this thread began......and the countless attempts to divert
attention from it off onto related (and easily defended) issues.

Anywho, my philosophy is that if you treat someone fairly and they
behave inappropriately, you have a good reason to fault them for it.
If, on the other hand, you pi&& them off first and get them good and
angry, you forfeit that "hey, I'm innocent!" defense - and share in
the blame.

Trolled? Perhaps! But I really don't recall Kim doing anything
incorrect or inappropriate at the outset of this, other than the
reediting of Jim's posts - she seems to have simply wanted to be
treated equally as an amateur. Mike, I believe that you yourself
redid the pool to reduce it to all first names at one point - an
intelligent and compromising way to diffuse the situation. But
diffused it would not be (and not beacuse of Kim's actions...) - so
here we are.

Forgetting for the purpose of this issue the past - um - interchanges
on this subject between Kim and the resident keepers of order and
decorum in this forum, the gross anatomy lessons came later....when
this thread was already running hot!


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
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

He does? He doesn't believe that he is Kim, he doesn't believe that
he is Mike, he doesn't believe that he is Len. He doesn't believe
that he is Leo.

But Dave still has problems relating to other people.

(Daniel J. Morlan) wrote in message om...
"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"William" wrote


I understand that you would -knowingly- work a ham out of band.


Dear Little Billy Beeper,

Does Captain Code know you're working us here? (Go to
http://www.handiham.org/local/blind/beeper.txt for details.)

I will not go out of my band allocation to work anyone, but I will work
anyone with an amateur radio callsign who calls me inside my band
allocations.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

I hope that was meant to be funny. I laughed off my hind quarters.
DJM


No, Dan, no laughing matter. He was serious about working other
amateurs out of band.

73, Brian

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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?

Nope. I do know parents who would steer their kids away
if they knew, though.

haven't seen one person of the child
rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup.

Yes, you have.

Instead, I see old men, some too old to even have young, impressionable,
grandkids,

How do you know how old somebody's grandchildren or children are, Dwight?

How old are these "old men"?

in a newsgroup acting like hearing the word

[word deleted]

was the shock of their life.

Well, that leaves me out. I'm not shocked by it at all. Heard it plenty of
times.
In fact, years ago National Lampoon did a canonical list of the various slang
names for certain body parts. Ran to hundreds of words.

I simply say it's inappropriate for ham radio, that's all.

Do you think it's appropriate?

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.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?

I don't think

[word deleted]

are vulgar, and I hope kids don't
think that (if they do, someone certainly failed to educate them properly).

So your values have to be everyone else's?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in
her post of 05/23/2000:

From Kim's post

Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the
call?
Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as
it has.
Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what
Kim thoughts the three letters

[letters deleted]

would have on the male persona.

Back to me:

Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply
allows Kim to achieve her stated goal.

Exactly.

Which is why, a few posts back, I quoted Maximus:

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"

73 de Jim, N2EY

"William"

|
| No, Dan, no laughing matter. He was serious about working other
| amateurs out of band.
|

Dear Willy Weeper,

I have never worked an amateur outside of the amateur bands, and I have
no intention of ever doing so.

You are a dump huck liar. Deal with it.

And you're back in my killfile until you come up with another gutless
anonymous email address which slips past.

PLONK

With warmest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"JJ" wrote in message
news
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?


Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop
my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she
gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public.
Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also...

Kim W5TIT