D. Stussy wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
D. Stussy wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a
retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).

I are a Ham!


Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal.

Allow a similar case.

Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people
think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy
Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal,
I'd be proud to be called one

That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing.

I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham.

It isn't a bad actor
It isn't a Piece of pork.

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

Lots of people are overweight. something like 60 percent of Americans
are. Interesting logic BTW. We're called Hams, not Pigs. And I'd rather
have an overweight Ham sitting beside me than a condescending one.


It is a licensed radio amateur.


While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur"
demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that
what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely
different things, although apparently not to some.

Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does.


Respectfully disagree. I've seen postings and have had many hams tell me
they consider the term amateur condescending. Even seen at least one QST
mail that said that.


How about a new reference name for the service


So what do *you* want to be called?

As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings....

Yup.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -