In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

(snip) While that's true, just because
a person has a right to do something
doesn't mean it's right to do it on every
occasion. While the call sign may fit the
constitution, for every instance where
a parent or uncle or grandparent doesn't
want a young person to get involved in
Ham Radio because of something they
hear on the bands, then you have taken
the ARS one step closer to extinction.
Then we can sit around and debate what
happened to all those Amateur
frequencies that industry bought at
auction---debating, of course, on the
internet and cellular because that'll be
all we have left. The first amendment will
still be alive and well, just as it is now,
tho, if that's any consolation. (snip)


Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first
read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to
this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this
admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT
(CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS
(TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar
callsigns, are not exactly unique.

Dwight:

Obviously, Riley was responding to Kim's specific inquiry regarding her
own call sign. It is likely that he would have also found those particular
call signs to be of questionable appropriateness in a family-oriented
hobbyist radio service.

Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning
to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I
can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out
of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign.

The "context" is self-evident. It is a well-known vulgarity referring to a
woman's breasts in a connotation which is generally considered to be
of a sexual nature.

Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except
one, a club call).

Maybe so, but that doesn't make them any less objectionable.

The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from
Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters
"TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman.

You have just seen me raise the issue of the objectionable nature of those
particular call sign suffixes, regardless of the sex of the holder.

Would Riley say those
callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?"

I would not presume to speak for Riley -- why don't you ask him?

Would Jim omit
those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would
you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim,
if any one of them were active in this newsgroup?

Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were issued sequentially, there is
no reason for the licensee to keep them and use them on the air if they
are of an objectionable nature. The FCC would certainly honor their
request for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who kept and used such
a call would be subject to the same questions regarding their motives as
is Kim.

73 de Larry, K3LT