Leo wrote in message . ..
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.

Leo, congrats. You are a small voice in the wilderness when you point
out that Dave is socially retarded and prone to misinterpret what he
reads.

But you are not alone.

bb

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

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...

The results prove that what I said was valid.

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.

Then you were different than most children I knew.

My parents morals, objective lessons,
words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me.

Uh huh.

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.

Of course she was right.

But that didn't stop you from smoking. How many years were you a
smoker, Kim?

Your mother's actions had more influence than her words. Despite what
she said, you smoked anyway. And finally quit when - 10 years ago?

Did you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached?

Nope. But neither did I think that it made sense to listen to someone
who *unrepentantly* lived one way and preached another.

Living one way and preaching another is a pretty good definition of hypocrisy,
btw.

And the fact remains that, logical or not, children are more influenced by
their parents' actions than their parents' words.

I certainly didn't.

Yet you smoked for how many years?

I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a
reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing
it."

But when it came to smoking, those words didn't stop you.

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.

I was teaching by example.

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.

I sure hope so!

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.

You can believe whatever you want - just as "creationists" can believe that the
Earth is only about 6000 years old. Your belief doesn't make it true.

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 have no idea what you mean by that.

I did not.

Yes, you *did*. Otherwise you would never have started smoking.

Oh, and lots of my friends did not.

Maybe. I bet a bunch of them smoked, though.

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 don't know. But they do. You did.

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.

And that was how many years ago?

Heh heh...but
it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago.

My point exactly. Your mom's lectures were to no avail - her *actions* got you
to start smoking, and to continue for years - decades.

Again, your story confirms the truth of what I'm saying. If your mom had not
smoked, you would not have smoked either, because you would not have had to try
to get her to quit.

Neither of my parents smoked when I was growing up. There were no lectures
against it. Just the example. None of us kids got the habit, either. I tried it
when I was 21 - went through two packs in about a week, decided it was no big
deal and never had another one.


.--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.

So it would be OK with you for, say, 10-12 year old boys and girls to see each
other naked?

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*?

Are you saying that the discussion of naked adults is inappropriate?

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.

Why?

Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?!

Kim - have I ever described *anything* here as vulgar?

I would say that for an adult to shower with children of the opposite sex - at
any age - is very inappropriate.

Good grief, I hope not.

Ask the experts.

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?

Who says nudity for infants and toddlers is "OK"? Not me. It's necessary when
changing diapers and such - but not after they're toilet trained.

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.

To a lot of people. One can go to jail for hauling them out at an inappropriate
time or place.

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.

When you tell me not to make a judgement call, *you* are making a judgement
call. What gives you the right to make a judgement call, but not me?

And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me
anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign.

The what's your beef?

Either leave me off
altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as
each and every other ham.

You're not on the list anymore - by your own request. Didn't you see that?

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.

Of course I could have handled it differently. But that would have compromised
my standards. Which I would not do. Period.

Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I
have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa."

Where's the whining? I'm pointing out facts. Look at the posts where I was told
what I should do, should have done, should post, should not post. Lotta
judgement calls from others about what *I* should do.

The point is you could have left my name
completely *off* the list.

And then you would have whined and moaned about how you weren't included.

"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!

Exactly. So why will I get arrested if I do it in most public places?

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.

Why? You said you have no problem with "nudity in general". Can't get
any more "general" than at high noon on Main Street.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"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...

I don't think any body parts are vulgar, Kim. Where did I say that? All
body parts are beautiful, regardless what we call them. I sure as gitout
ain't the Victorian morality police.

If you are talking about my saying you would be better able to explain
the difference, I'm talking about what I read as a minor discrepancy
between your posting:

No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what
thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona.

and:

I was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that
my vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign
that would be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told
them, that I would get K5TIT if I could.


One part of the post seems to say that no body parts are involved, and
the other says elswise.

I don't really care much about your callsign one way or the other. But
I do recognize that some people do. And you do too, according to:

Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the
call? The fact that it would get the attention of the male
ego...just as it has.

And Jim and Larry and Dwight and Leo and JJ and Dave and the others are
indulging you quite nicely, wouldn't you say?

I would only wish that there were *no* more attention paid to your
callsign than mine.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
(snip) haven't seen one person of the
child rearing age group voice a single
complaint about this in this newsgroup.

Yes, you have.


Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group. How old are you
now? 49? How many young, impressionable, children do you have running
around your house? Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either.


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


Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country.


How old are these "old men"?


Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who
else?


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

Do you think it's appropriate?


Kim's callsign or the word alone?


Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you,
the person hearing it, makes it.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?


And I didn't say you said it was vulgar.


So your values have to be everyone
else's?


Don't be silly. I never said that either.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"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.

That was not my question, so I'll ask it again.

Would you work another amateur that you knew was out of band?

bb

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
(snip) haven't seen one person of the
child rearing age group voice a single
complaint about this in this newsgroup.

Yes, you have.

Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group.

What age group is that? I know people ranging in age from '20s to '50s who are
raising small children.

The days when the nests were all empty by the time Mom and Dad hit 50 are long
gone, Dwight. And that's in "typical" America.

How old are you now? 49?

Yup. My birthday is qrz.com.

How many young, impressionable, children do you have running
around your house?

Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic
situation here.

Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5 children ranging in age from toddlers to
teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the point). Would you then say I was right
and Kim's call was inappropriate?

Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either.

He's a little older. So what? And Larry and I are not the only ones.

People have all kids of family situations these days. Blended families,
"second" families, adoptions, people raising or helping to raise their
grandchildren, etc. etc. etc.

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

Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country.

And your source is?

How old are these "old men"?

Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who
else?

Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged".

I run 35-40 minutes every morning. Last week my running log shows 268 minutes
for the week. You know any "old men" who do that?

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

Do you think it's appropriate?

Kim's callsign or the word alone?

Both. I say neither is appropriate.

Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you,
the person hearing it, makes it.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?

And I didn't say you said it was vulgar.

You and Kim keep using the term "vukgar" rather than addressing whether it's
"appropriate".

So your values have to be everyone
else's?

Don't be silly. I never said that either.

It's implied by your statements.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:

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

Yes, you have.



Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group. How old are you
now? 49? How many young, impressionable, children do you have running
around your house? Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either.



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



Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country.



How old are these "old men"?



Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who
else?


Sorry you consider that old, Dwight!



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

Do you think it's appropriate?



Kim's callsign or the word alone?



Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you,
the person hearing it, makes it.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?



And I didn't say you said it was vulgar.



So your values have to be everyone
else's?



Don't be silly. I never said that either.

You know, Dwight, I'm not so sure. I don't recall Jim ever making an
issue of the issue, except for ommitting the callsign. He's not doing
anything except omitting what he finds inappropriate. He isn't calling
Kim names, and he Is engaging her in posts here in the group.

And as pointed out, the callsign was indeed chosen so that some people
WOULD find it inappropriate.


What would *you* have him do? I'm a little confused about what some
people want out of this thread. Jim HAS to use Kim's callsign? Jim has
to apologize to Kim for finding her callsign inappropriate? Jim has to
have his posts approved for content before posting?

What do you think of her reasoning behind getting that callsign? I
don't care one way or the other, aside from an acceptance of it, and for
discussion of the callsign to go away, even though that would probably
be dissapointing to the owner, who has stated that the callsign was
designed to get attention, and which people are giving attention to the
callsign in what must be an immensely gratifying amount to her.

Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"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



Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either. And, in addition,
I've heard many interviews and giggles wherein Dolly was either alluding to
or answering direct questions pertaining to her breasts.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"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



Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either. And, in
addition,
I've heard many interviews and giggles wherein Dolly was either alluding
to
or answering direct questions pertaining to her breasts.

Kim W5TIT

Answering a direct question is not making an issue of it. That is
addressing other people's issues. Same for alluding to them, she is
addressing other people's issues. She is not the one starting it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Kim W5TIT wrote:



Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either.

Except every time you use your call sign, which is exactly why you chose it.