RadioBanter - ARS License Numbers

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - ARS License Numbers (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/26575-re-ars-license-numbers.html)

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Kim:

Mr. Riley Hollingsworth seems to disagree with you. Have you forgotten
that he said that your call sign has the potential to take the ARS
"...one step closer to extinction"?

Riley would never have done such a thing, Larry. His message was
speaking
in generality. So, no, he never directly said that about my callsign.
As
usual, you translated something to a way you wanted it.

Kim:

I "translated" the words of Mr. Hollingsworth? Hmmm, let's examine
that concept. I know that this breaks long-standing Usenet/rrap
tradition,
but here's the quote:

................Quoted message begins.....................
In article
59B7203A07395FF0.50F2CC864D4ED7FE.54A4CB093D32584 ,
"Kim W5TIT" writes:

Probably more a thoughtful wish of the prefix I wish I'd been able to
get.
Speaking of callsigns, here's Riley's response after I wrote and told him
I
was sorry for bothering him, since the FCC had already spoken on
callsigns
at the Dayton Hamfest (the rest of the email is also with it):

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.

................Quoted message ends.......................

OK, Kim, did you find the part about taking the ARS "...one step closer
to extinction," or not? If not, which part did I "translate" into that
exact
language?

Yep, and I am corrected. He does say "you." And, I respectfully disagree
with his observation.

It is people like Larry and his attitudes that are
destroying the ARS.

Don't look now, Kim, but I've never been admonished by Riley
Hollingsworth about doing something which could potentially cause
prospective hams to decide to go fishing instead.

Larry, it doesn't take being admonished by anyone to be proven that you have
a bad attitude--and one that is poisonous for the ARS. Your attitude is
more venomous than my callsign--for sure.

I don't see how that's possible, Kim. After all, I'm not the one who
is sporting a callsign which is shamefully demeaning to women in
general, and YL hams in particular. However, you are -- and even
Riley Hollingsworth has said so, and I can't think of anyone who is
more qualified to make that judgment than he is!

If you truly believe that about my callsign, Larry--and I don't believe
you
do, then you are destroying it as much as anyone else.

I do believe that, Kim, but I fail to find any logic in your statement
above.
However, that's just you being you.

And, I don't think you do believe that.

In Larry's mind, it's probably my fault because he has
to be so hateful toward me because of my callsign :)

It's not hate, Kim. It's concern. Concern for the negative image of
the ARS that you are projecting through the selection of your
callsign, which places amateur radio operators, and particularly YL
hams, in a negative light. If anyone is being "hateful," it is you --
and you are showing this hate toward your fellow hams by demonstrating
a blatant lack of respect for the image of the service.

73 de Larry, K3LT

IF for one minute you are concerned about negative images for the ARS,
then
you would shut up, Larry.

What am *I* doing to give the ARS a negative image, Kim? My on-the-air
operating is the only thing that matters regarding my "image" as a ham,
and
I've never had any complaints. However, Riley Hollingsworth has made it
quite clear that *you* and *your* callsign are definitely a problem. In
fact,
a big enough problem to cause him to take the time to compose his
reply to your E-mail. That speaks volumes.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Then, that given, I haven't been on the air for over a year, Larry. And,
the only reason Riley made any comment at all about my callsign is that I
was big enough to approach him about it. It proves I'm the better person.
You can't even own up to your own destructiveness. Why don't you invite
comments from Riley on you?

He's much too much a gentleman and scholar to be found responding to the
likes of you...

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

Larry, I seriously doubt Hollingsworth would have said anything if he
had
known his words would be used as a basis for your harassment of Kim over
this subject for several years.

Dwight:

If that's the case, then he would have to blame Kim for that outcome, not
me. After all, it was Kim who quoted Riley's comments made in a
private E-mail in this public newsgroup, thereby making them public
domain and subject to being used against her in the future.

Being used "against" me? You are hilarious, Larry. I thought you said your
posts were intellectual and logical.

If I were her,
I would not have done that. However, Kim was eager to make the point
that she had a legal, Constitutional "right" to choose her call sign, such
as
it is.

Yeah, and you apparently don't like it.

In his reply, Mr. Hollingsworth assured Kim that she did, indeed have
that "right," but the exercise thereof was potentially harmful to the
image
of the ARS, to the extent that he predicted that it had the potential to
take
the ARS ".one step closer to extinction."

You'll note, Larry, that by your own post of the words from Riley, he's
quite capable of something you are not: being a gentleman and democratic
about his--"HIS"--personal opinion. Anyone is entitled to their opinion,
Larry, even you. However, you'll also note that Riley never went beyond
making a statement on his own personal opinion.

Kim's act of hubris, in making the attempt to get a well-known authority
to validate her action, has backfired on her in a most inconvenient way.
If Mr. Hollingsworth has any objection to the way his words are being
utilized, he needs to take that matter up with Kim, not me.

You dumb-ass, Larry. I did not try to "make" Riley validate anything. You
completely missed the point that was done for.

You've never been admonished by Hollingsworth simply because you've
never
had the guts to tell him what you're doing.

Mr. Hollingsworth has the same access to this newsgroup as anyone else.
If he wanted to do anything about it, he certainly has the technology to
do so. Should he contact me with the request that I desist in using his
quote in the manner in which I have been doing, I will certainly comply.
However, this would not absolve Kim of her responsibility for introducing
Mr. Hollingsworth's words to this public forum.

Again, Riley would never request that someone desist anything; while he is
offering his own personal opinions. He likely would caution that you are as
destructive, if not more than, as I to the ARS. My callsign, in my opinion,
is not destructive to the ARS. My opinion is as valid as Riley's, yours, or
anyone else's.

So, since Kim was willing to
contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her behavior), why
don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your behavior (your
use
of his words to publicly harass Kim for all this time) has any effect on
Ham
Radio?

For the simple reason that my behavior is not in question here. Kim is
not
being "harassed." She is merely experiencing the justified reaction to an
action she took which is potentially harmful to the image of the ARS, and
that is my right

You give yourself way too much importance, Larry. I am not experiencing
anything but humor at your ignorance and desperate attempt to be right.

-- just as it was Kim's "right" to self-select a call sign
with
a vulgar, sexualized, and demeaning connotation which reflects poorly on
YL radio amateurs everywhere. As someone else put it in another posting,
if her call sign had been issued as a sequential assignment, then this
whole matter would not be at issue.

More at issue is your destructive attitude toward the ARS by being such an
idiot, Larry.

Kim deliberately chose that call sign
in order for it to have the effect of generating attention to herself, and
to
stir up controversy. Well, it worked -- and now she is responsible for
any and all consequences appertaining to her action.

That is your interpretation of why I have this callsign, Larry.

As for whether my "behavior" will have any affect on ham radio, I
certainly hope so. I happen to be expressing my vehement and
determined opposition to an action by a radio amateur which has the
potential to do serious damage to the image of the ARS. By doing
so, I hope to send the message that behavior such as Kim's is not
to be tolerated.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Good grief, Larry. Your "behavior" is despicable. The only message you
send is one of idiocy.

And, I seem to recall that I told you when you had something intelligent and
logical to say that you'd see me responding to you. I've seen nothing
intelligent and logical yet--and I've given you every opportunity. So,
you'll see nothing from me again until you have something intelligent and
logical. Every time that is requested, you act like a fly on **** with the
callsign issue. Not intellectual, not logical.

You can't do it, can you?

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"WA8ULX" wrote:

Well (snip) produce the PLURAL MESSAGES

Bruce, there are over a hundred messages posted by you in the CB
newsgroup.

At least he posted there under his own name, Dwight. He gets points for
that.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Sure I can. Got any?

You have allready heard the FACTS, your problem is you cant handle it.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

If that's the case, then he would have to
blame Kim for that outcome, not me. After
all, it was Kim who quoted Riley's comments
made in a private E-mail in this public
newsgroup, thereby making them public domain
and subject to being used against her in
the future.

His words here, or posted/published anywhere else, don't provide you with
an excuse to use those words in an ongoing smear campaign against Kim or
anyone else. I think Hollingsworth would be appalled by your actions.

For the simple reason that my behavior is
not in question here.

Your behavior is in question here - by me. So, again, since Kim was
willing to contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her
behavior), why don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your
behavior (your use of his words to publicly harass Kim for many months) has
any effect on Ham Radio?

Kim is not being "harassed." She is merely
experiencing the justified reaction to an
action she took which is potentially harmful
to the image of the ARS, and that is my
right -- just as it was Kim's "right" to
self-select a call sign with a vulgar,
sexualized, and demeaning connotation which
reflects poorly on YL radio amateurs
everywhere. (snip)

Get off your pulpit, Larry. You do not speak for YL radio amateurs. My
wife is not offended by Kim's callsign. Instead, she thinks you're stuck in
a sexist past - a past where men told women what they could and could not
do. That past is gone.

That is two female radio amateurs (Kim and my wife) saying the opposite of
what you claim. So exactly where are all those YL radio amateurs you claim
are offended by Kim's callsign, Larry?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

At least he posted there under his own name,
Dwight. He gets points for that.

He's so far in the hole on points, awarding points at this point isn't
even worth the effort. But, we'll give him credit for that - I won't call
him a CB'er in one message. In fact, I've did that today, so his credit is
taken care of. ;)

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

a past where men told women what they could and could not
do.

You mean you dont, you little sissy

What would be interesting is to find out from KIM WHY she choose that
Callsign, what was her motivation.

"WA8ULX" wrote:

What would be interesting is to find out
from KIM WHY she choose that Callsign,
what was her motivation.

Actually, I believe she has explained that before. So, perhaps you should
search through the message archives for the answer. As for myself, since
it's really none of my business, I'm not really interested in the reason.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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