Kim W5TIT wrote:

"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


You stated in a previous post that you knew the callsign would get a
reaction, that is why the T-I-T part of your callsign was chosen. If it
is just another call sign, why did you expect a reaction?
Why didn't you choose some other suffix? Why TIT? Here is why in your
own words.

"I jokingly told my fellow hams one day (all men, of course) that it was
silly to get initials for a vanity callsign--one should put some real
punch into a vanity callsign."

You wanted some "punch" in your callsign, thus the suffix "TIT" as it
references your breasts, thus getting the attention and reaction you so
desperately want.

You also stated, "The fun that evolves out of it is a great bonus." In
other words you new the reactions it would give, and you enjoy the
comments about your callsign and it's reference to your breasts. If it
were just a callsign like any other, there wouldn't be any fun that
evolves out of it and a great bonus would it?

Extremely poor taste.

N2EY wrote:
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?!"

A little bit, for a little while.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

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.


From those friends and associates, Jim...who were in on why the callsign,
etc.


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.


No, they are no different than a hand, a nose, a foot, all of which could be
sexual appendages at some point. But, *in the right context* they (tits)
are just as bland and boring as a nose, a foot, or whatever.

And, as to displaying them, I personally have no problem at all with nudity
in general. I am not prone to "automatically" assume a nude body is for
sex, or something vulgar as you may describe it. I think it's darned unfair
that men can run around showing their tits, when a man is just as likely to
get aroused by someone playing with their nipples as any woman is. What's
the difference whether a man goes topless or a woman goes topless?


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.


I don't think I did at all. But have it your way...


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".


What do you mean "would you"? I did. My parents morals, objective lessons,
words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me. I knew that they were
right because, as my mother would tell me "if you start smoking now, it will
be extremely difficult for you to quit when you learn how bad it is," as she
was puffing on her cigarette--I knew how much she wanted to quit smoking. I
saw no contradiction whatever in what she was saying. She was right. Did
you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached? I certainly
didn't. I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a
reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing
it."


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.


Not sure why you felt like you had to elaborate. I knew where you were
coming from.


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.


Your philosophy is different than mine, then. Either it is or it ain't. If
I believe the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" is pertinent and
that I've learned more from it than those who tried to lead by example, then
I believe it across the board--not selectively. And, I believe it.


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.


Please don't use "they" in the vernacular. I did not. Oh, and lots of my
friends did not.


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.


How could someone who sees a parent smoking, hacking, stinking up the place,
chained to the cigarette, ever think smoking could be a lot of fun?! I used
to smoke, but not because I thought it was fun. I think I probably started
to get in trouble--get the attention of my mom so she'd quit. Heh heh...but
it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago.

Sex? Oh, no way that could be any fun. I grew up in a town of less than a
thousand people and I saw teen-aged girls getting pregnant at like 13!!
Wasn't no way that was fun.


.--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.


I think it's appropriate and natural to have children see each other nekked.
By the way, why are you so huffy about not printing a callsign (all
inclusive with its prefix and suffix) but you'll bring up and print the
subject of "naked adults?" I mean, really...where is your logic in *that*?

Anyway, and as to adults being naked, I used to take showers with my kids
(sons) when they were little, stopped probably when they were--oh I don't
know--3 or 4. Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?! Good grief, I hope not.
But, as I said, have it your way. And, why *is* it OK for nudity when one
is, presumably, an infant or toddler and then, just as they are probably
quite comfortable with the nude body--we suddenly decide "OHMYGAWD...you
can't see me *THAT* way!!!" Whaddup wid dat?


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.


Maybe to you. And that's your right to believe like that. But, don't make
a judgement call--and you have--about someone who thinks it differently than
you. And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me
anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign. Either leave me off
altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as
each and every other ham. And, by the way, I am pretty much going to quit
debating the topic because it's pretty darned obvious that we
disagree--wholeheartedly--on this. You've turned it into a debate about my
callsign. The issue isn't *why*, it is that you did and that you could have
handled it differently. Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I
have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa." I am not at all,
neither is Leo, or anyone else. The point is you could have left my name
completely *off* the list.


"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?


Hey! Now you're talking!


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


Well, there may be patients who wouldn't mind exams in public...I would,
though.


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


And, you're incorrect...

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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 -


Hmmm, body parts that are vulgar, Mike. And, I don't think there's a vulgar
body part. Oh, maybe the tongue...

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

| I personally have no problem at all with nudity
| in general. I am not prone to "automatically"
| assume a nude body is for sex...


Here's how you can tell..... if a person is 'nude', that means they
aren't wearing any clothing. On the other hand, if a person is
'nekkid', that means they aren't wearing any clothing and they're up to
something.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

"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


You stated in a previous post that you knew the callsign would get a
reaction, that is why the T-I-T part of your callsign was chosen. If it
is just another call sign, why did you expect a reaction?
Why didn't you choose some other suffix? Why TIT? Here is why in your
own words.


You're correct, I chose T-I-T for the suffix of my callsign; however, I did
not choose the name "tit," the nickname "tit," or the *word* "tit." I also
did not choose the *callsign* W5TIT for vulgar, sexual, or otherwise
negative reasons. All of you who feel it is have dreamed that one up on
your own.


"I jokingly told my fellow hams one day (all men, of course) that it was
silly to get initials for a vanity callsign--one should put some real
punch into a vanity callsign."

You wanted some "punch" in your callsign, thus the suffix "TIT" as it
references your breasts, thus getting the attention and reaction you so
desperately want.


So, boring, mundane, random, etc., is your way of defining what is "right."
Again, you've dreamed that one up on your own.


You also stated, "The fun that evolves out of it is a great bonus." In
other words you new the reactions it would give, and you enjoy the
comments about your callsign and it's reference to your breasts. If it
were just a callsign like any other, there wouldn't be any fun that
evolves out of it and a great bonus would it?

Extremely poor taste.


Oh, so you know of others who don't have "fun" callsigns. Gosh...maybe you
should get yourself, and them, into something a whole lot more fun.
Because, for you to be so obsessed over an innocuous callsign just lends
itself to your misery of being in the hobby around such questionable,
deranged characters such as me.

Kim W5TIT

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

| I personally have no problem at all with nudity
| in general. I am not prone to "automatically"
| assume a nude body is for sex...


Here's how you can tell..... if a person is 'nude', that means they
aren't wearing any clothing. On the other hand, if a person is
'nekkid', that means they aren't wearing any clothing and they're up to
something.

73, de Hans, K0HB



Ummmm, Hans, there's a lot easier way to tell if people without clothes on
are "up to something" or not.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"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


Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no
vulgarity.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Oh, so you know of others who don't have "fun" callsigns. Gosh...maybe you
should get yourself, and them, into something a whole lot more fun.
Because, for you to be so obsessed over an innocuous callsign just lends
itself to your misery of being in the hobby around such questionable,
deranged characters such as me.

Kim W5TIT


Spin it anyway you want kimmygirl, you chose the suffix tit because of
the reference to breasts, to give your call some "punch" as you put it.

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

"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



Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no
vulgarity.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And I doubt if Dolly had a ham license she would apply for a call sign
with the suffix of "TIT", she has more class than that.