Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


I have never stated that any specific YL hams *were* offended by Kim's
call sign. I have only stated that I agree with Riley Hollingsworth when he
says that Kim's call sign has the potential to do harm to the image of the ARS,
and YL hams in general. Kim and your XYL prove absolutely nothing
with regard to the validity of my objections to her (Kim's) call sign.

73 de Larry, K3LT

There are a ton of things potentially more harmful and more
likely to bring amateur radio "one step closer to extinction"
than Kim's call sign. However, it is in bad taste and I can't
imagine anyone requesting such a call sign other than to bring
attention to one's self, but then there are those who seem to
seek the lowest common denominator.
I knew one ham couple and the wife's call sign (not requested,
just what was issued) had the last letters DTA. He had a T shirt
made for her that gave the call across the chest with the
phonetics, "Don't Touch Anything".

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .

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?


Nor am I offended but I do question the good sense of a person who would
pick a designation that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Nor am I offended but I do question the good
sense of a person who would pick a designation
that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations.


Clearly, I certainly wouldn't pick such a callsign, and hopefully neither
would my wife. But that is just our choice, not a condemnation of Kim's
choice. I'm not going to attempt to walk in Kim's shoes, simply because I
know little about where she walks. She does, so I'll accept her choice for
what it is.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .

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?


Nor am I offended but I do question the good sense of a person who would
pick a designation that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dee, to be as succinct with this: there are many things in one's life that
can be misinterpreted. While I chose this callsign with a desire borne out
of a dare from friends and local hams here; nevertheless I didn't really
consider that there would be misunderstandings about my callsign. And, for
those whom have come to know me; or who "just know" me by virtue of their
having a sort of twisted sense of humor--the callsign has been no big deal.

I've been in casual, contest, and emergency situations with my callsign. It
has never, never been degraded, questioned, or commented on over the
air--save one time when a passerby happened upon our repeater one day and I
introduced myself, our folks and the repeater. He came back with, "well,
hello Kim, W5TIT. I am passing through the....what did I just say?" He
ended his question in giggles and that was all that was ever said.

To make a long, boring story short, the callsign has had the most inane
objections right here in this newsgroup, and nowhere else. There's not a
lady ham out there who's ever had anything but a hand covered giggle over
this callsign. It's been a great ice breaker and it immediately lets folks
know that to know me means to know and understand that I in no way take
myself seriously--and there's not much they are going to have done or do
that's going to run me off. Simple as that.

That it runs folks like Larry off--for me--is a godsend...

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Nor am I offended but I do question the good
sense of a person who would pick a designation
that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations.


Clearly, I certainly wouldn't pick such a callsign, and hopefully
neither
would my wife. But that is just our choice, not a condemnation of Kim's
choice. I'm not going to attempt to walk in Kim's shoes, simply because I
know little about where she walks. She does, so I'll accept her choice for
what it is.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Thankee, Dwight. And, that's a typical example of a civil, and normal,
human relationship. There are those of us who can have those.... ;)

Kim W5TIT

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

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.

Dwight:

Well so far, I haven't heard any complaints from anyone but you.
Objection noted. That doesn't mean I'll desist.

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

Your behavior is in question here - by me.

However, your "questioning" of my behavior would leave one to suspect
your own motivation. Since you object to the majority of my opinions,
yet seem unequipped to debate me in an effective manner, one can only
conclude that, like all liberals, you just want the opposition (me) to shut
up and go away. That's not going to happen, except at my own
convenience.

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?

Asked and answered.

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.

With all due respect to your XYL, she is not qualified to judge me. She
has no idea how I relate to women in person. Moreover, I don't tell ANYONE
what they can and cannot do. All I am trying to do is influence Kim to
make up her own mind to do the right thing.

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?

I have never stated that any specific YL hams *were* offended by Kim's
call sign. I have only stated that I agree with Riley Hollingsworth when he
says that Kim's call sign has the potential to do harm to the image of the ARS,
and YL hams in general. Kim and your XYL prove absolutely nothing
with regard to the validity of my objections to her (Kim's) call sign.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

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?


Nor am I offended but I do question the good sense of a person who would
pick a designation that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations.

Dee:

I believe that is precisely what Riley Hollingsworth was addressing in his
response to Kim's E-mail. There are certainly some people with bad
enough taste and judgment to not be "offended" by Kim's call sign, but
that hardly accommodates all possible perceptions. My perception of
her call sign is that it was chosen to purposely place a vulgar, sexualized
image of YL hams "in the face" of her fellow hams, and worse, the faces
of prospective hams who may not share her libertine philosophy regarding
the image of the female form, hers in particular. This is supposed to
be a family-oriented hobby/service, and I don't believe such an image as
Kim is imposing on the whole of the ARS is the correct one. Therefore,
unless and until she decides to change her call sign, she will remain the
object of my outspoken disapproval. How long this continues is totally
up to her.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

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:

Actually, it most certainly is the business of any radio amateur who
is properly concerned with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr. Hollingsworth said it most
succinctly in his response to Kim when he raised the issue of the
possible negative reaction of a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle who may
be considering this hobby for a young child in their life. Kim's callsign
most certainly could cause such a person to question the judgment,
if not the personal integrity and morality, of radio amateurs in general,
through this one bad example.

Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her choice
of a Vanity call sign.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Actually, it most certainly is the business
of any radio amateur who is properly concerned
with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr.
Hollingsworth said it most succinctly in his
response to Kim when he raised the issue of
the possible negative reaction of a parent/
grandparent/aunt/uncle who may be considering
this hobby for a young child in their life.
Kim's callsign most certainly could cause such
a person to question the judgment, if not the
personal integrity and morality, of radio
amateurs in general, through this one bad
example. (snip)


Who's really seeking the lowest common denominator, Larry? You seem to be
saying that nothing should be mentioned on Ham Radio that might offend or
confuse a young child. If we accept that position, all we'd be allowed to
talk about is Barney and the Sesame Street characters.

Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not offended or
confused by the simple mention of it. If a child is, the parent should
consider a discussion with them about human sexuality. If they're too young
for that discussion, they're probably too young to be talking with adults on
the radio or most other places.

If you're offended by Kim's callsign, you need to grow up. The adults of
this world are not going to censor their discussions simply to cater to your
unusually delicate sensitivities. And, to be honest with you, I wouldn't
want to see Ham Radio go in that direction.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

With all due respect to your XYL, she is not
qualified to judge me. She has no idea how
I relate to women in person. (snip)


Since you're basing your objection on how it reflects on women ("a vulgar,
sexualized, and demeaning connotation which reflects poorly on YL radio
amateurs everywhere"), she is, as a woman, qualified to judge the weight of
that argument. She has done so, and feels your argument lacks substance. She
is, as a woman, also able to say whether Kim's callsign is offensive to her.
She says it is not.

Your argument lacks substance, Larry. Three women have disagreed with your
position (my wife, Kim, and Dee). While two of the three have reservations
about Kim's callsign (they wouldn't choose it), none find it outright
offensive.

Men once used shame and ridicule to force women to comply with their
domination. That time has passed, Larry. Women are not ashamed of their
bodies anymore, nor are they embarrassed by the mere mention of some part of
that body. Would we (men) really want it any other way?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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