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


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


'SCUSE ME????? And, how exactly do you think *I* started this?
Oh...wait,
I got the callsign. Well, we've had that debate in here before and my
equivalent to that is that it's like saying someone who wears skimpy
clothes, or looks sexy, etc., is just asking to get raped.


No not quite the same thing at all.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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. 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?

Dwight:

I was born Oct. 31, 1952, which makes me 51 years young. I don't feel
a day over 30, however!

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?

The suffix of Kim's call sign spells out a word which is commonly
regarded as a vulgar reference to a woman's breasts. Therefore,
her call sign is very inappropriate for a family-oriented activity such
as the amateur radio service.

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.

The "vulgarity" of Kim's call sign would be open to the perceptions of
other hams. Riley Hollingsworth said it best when he said that a parent,
grandparent, uncle or aunt of a young person who was also a prospective
ham would likely be put off by her call, and choose a more appropriate
activity for that young person to pursue. Thus, it has the potential to
bring the ARS "…one step closer to extinction." I won't presume to
speak for Kim, but I, for one, wouldn't want that hanging over my head!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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 -

Mike:

Very well said. I have no doubt that Kim chose her callsign with the
specific intent of inciting controversy. However, in so doing, she has
left herself open to others forming the opinion that she is simply a
no-class slag with absolutely no taste, self-respect, or sense of
propriety whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is no way that she can
possibly dispel that perception unless she does the right thing and
changes her call sign to something more appropriate for a family-
oriented activity like amateur radio. Only time will tell whether or
not she takes this advice to heart, and acts accordingly. However,
if she intends to keep her present call sign, then she will always
be in the position of having to defend the indefensible. And as long
as there are still good, decent people involved in the ARS, her
arguments will fall on deaf ears.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote:

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.


That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.


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


It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age
group have young children.


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?


Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her
callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that.


And your source is?


Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.


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


Forty or fifty is certainly not young.


Both. I say neither is appropriate.


Appropriate for what? As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what is
appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas of
what is appropriate.


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


I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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. (snip)


By omitting the callsign, he made it an issue to be discussed. Were we all
supposed to notice it and say nothing?


What would *you* have him do? I'm
a little confused about what some
people want out of this thread. (snip)


I wouldn't "have him do" anything. There has been no demands made of him
from me. He's free to do what he wants, just as we're free to comment on
what he does.


What do you think of her reasoning
behind getting that callsign? (snip)


As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings
were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. I've told Kim what I think, and
that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I
certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a
several year period as some in this newsgroup have done.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

The suffix of Kim's call sign spells
out a word which is commonly
regarded as a vulgar reference to
a woman's breasts. Therefore,
her call sign is very inappropriate
for a family-oriented activity such
as the amateur radio service.


By whose standards of inappropriateness, Larry? And who made that person
the judge of what is appropriate in this radio service? The FCC issued the
callsign. As far as I'm concerned, that is the only "judge" that matters in
this regard.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

The "vulgarity" of Kim's call sign would be open to the perceptions of
other hams. Riley Hollingsworth said it best when he said that a parent,
grandparent, uncle or aunt of a young person who was also a prospective
ham would likely be put off by her call, and choose a more appropriate
activity for that young person to pursue. Thus, it has the potential to
bring the ARS ".one step closer to extinction." I won't presume to
speak for Kim, but I, for one, wouldn't want that hanging over my head!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry, you are one of the most vulgar persons I've ever been witness to.

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Mike:

Very well said. I have no doubt that Kim chose her callsign with the
specific intent of inciting controversy. However, in so doing, she has
left herself open to others forming the opinion that she is simply a
no-class slag with absolutely no taste, self-respect, or sense of
propriety whatsoever.


From people such as yourself?! That's a joke!


Unfortunately, there is no way that she can
possibly dispel that perception unless she does the right thing and
changes her call sign to something more appropriate for a family-
oriented activity like amateur radio.


My callsign is as appropriate as anyone else's. Oh, I know you feel
differently but, like I have implied, people such as yourself just don't get
it. What of your rude, crude, obnoxious behavior, Larry? Oh, wait, you
think that's OK! ROFLMAO.


Only time will tell whether or
not she takes this advice to heart, and acts accordingly.


Time's told. It won't be changed, unless I ever decide to get K5TIT, but I
doubt I will.


However,
if she intends to keep her present call sign, then she will always
be in the position of having to defend the indefensible.


Y'know...you almost make that sound like you think having this callsign is
some kind of punishment or something. I don't defend my callsign at
all...why would the need arise? On the other hand, it's rather comical
people such as yourself are so compelled to react to a callsign, when your
very actions against other people are quite despicable and rather
embarrassing to the ARS. My callsign *may* be offensive to some people.
However, there's nothing equal to some of the personalities I see displayed
in this newsgroup and one can only hope they don't act like that on the air!


And as long
as there are still good, decent people involved in the ARS, her
arguments will fall on deaf ears.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Isn't that something?! The people I consider good, decent folks in the ARS,
don't have an issue with my callsign at all. Oh, by the way, isn't it
around that time of year that this thread get dropped again, Larry?
ROFLMAO!!!!!

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

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.

That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case,
I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.


I know one guy from work that has his granddaughter living with him. Whew!
Man, that would be hell on earth in my opinion! I have raised kids and it
ain't happenin' again--at least not unless there are extremely unusual
circumstances. And, if the parents think they're moving back in...pah!!!!

There's one gal I know, who might even be a couple of years older than me,
who has around a nine year old daughter. And, it was deliberate! But, even
of people who are just acquaintences, that's all I know.


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

It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age
group have young children.

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?

Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing
her
callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that.


I'd only answer that my callsign is not inappropriate under any
circumstance. The word tit is (for the air on the ARS); however, the word
tit is never used by me...and I've never heard it used by anyone else.


And your source is?


Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.


I've a feeling if it ain't issued from some form of almanac, governmental
statistic, or otherwise recorable device, it ain't acceptable as fact.


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


Forty or fifty is certainly not young.


I don't think it's old, either, Dwight...and good heavens I certainly don't
act it!


Both. I say neither is appropriate.


Appropriate for what? As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what
is
appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas
of
what is appropriate.


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


I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last)
year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual time
for it to be dying down.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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. (snip)


By omitting the callsign, he made it an issue to be discussed. Were we
all
supposed to notice it and say nothing?


Ya wouldn't believe who pointed it out to me! LOL


What would *you* have him do? I'm
a little confused about what some
people want out of this thread. (snip)


I wouldn't "have him do" anything. There has been no demands made of him
from me. He's free to do what he wants, just as we're free to comment on
what he does.


The only thing I'd suggest, but it's far too liberal for Jim, I'm sure, is
that if he has a problem with my callsign and has a "list" with peoples'
amateur radio callsigns in it, then it would have been far more appropriate
(at least in my opinion) to either just leave my submission out of the list
(could have even sent me a private email or posted why--this debate could
have been had for the umpteenth million time under another thread
altogether); or he could have put everyone in the list with just their name.

But, "have" him do? While Jim has found it handy to feel that things are
being *demanded* of him, no one has demanded a thing.


What do you think of her reasoning
behind getting that callsign? (snip)


As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings
were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. I've told Kim what I think, and
that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I
certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a
several year period as some in this newsgroup have done.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Yeah, and it was probably me (shudder to think), but the issue with the
omission of my callsign from the list isn't the issue; the issue is the
editing of the post that was made by Jim, even though he edits things from
my posts--NOT only my callsign, but words. I see no difference at all. He
does. Some others see no difference at all. Some others do. So, what's
different about this thread than any other thread in the newsgroup?

Kim W5TIT