"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"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?


GRIN Larry *is* the lowest common denominator here, Dwight...LOL Know
that saying, "can't see the forest for the trees?"


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.


I get the oddest vision in my mind when I think of Larry and his incessant
whining about such puritanical thoughts. Know the vision? You know the
one: where a spanking is more the pleasure of the person touching the butt
than anything else? "I'm doing this for your own good" kind of thinking?


Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not offended
or
confused by the simple mention of it.


We are dealing here, with someone who is not--no where near--most adults.


If a child is, the parent should
consider a discussion with them about human sexuality.


Man, you got that right.


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.


More like if they're too young for that discussion, they probably wouldn't
be able to decipher W5TIT into the word tit.


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/


Growing up won't be done any time soon. We all know that. Let him have his
fun--that's all this is to him. I can guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind
my callsign one bit. He just likes having the topic to throw around once in
a while. I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be saving the poor wretch
from complete and awesome boredom!

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"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?


GRIN Larry *is* the lowest common denominator here, Dwight...LOL Know
that saying, "can't see the forest for the trees?"


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.


I get the oddest vision in my mind when I think of Larry and his incessant
whining about such puritanical thoughts. Know the vision? You know the
one: where a spanking is more the pleasure of the person touching the butt
than anything else? "I'm doing this for your own good" kind of thinking?


Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not
offended
or
confused by the simple mention of it.


We are dealing here, with someone who is not--no where near--most adults.


If a child is, the parent should
consider a discussion with them about human sexuality.


Man, you got that right.


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.


More like if they're too young for that discussion, they probably wouldn't
be able to decipher W5TIT into the word tit.


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/


Growing up won't be done any time soon. We all know that. Let him have
his
fun--that's all this is to him. I can guarantee you that Larry doesn't
mind
my callsign one bit. He just likes having the topic to throw around once
in
a while. I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be saving the poor wretch
from complete and awesome boredom!

Kim W5TIT



I think most of us on here are adults Kim. We have all heard and all know
what a TIT is. I doubt that most of us think your choice of W5TIT for a
callsigh is offensive. I think most of us believe it is a pathetic attempt
for attention.

I personally believe you are a closet exhibitionist.

Thank you for your time Twit.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) Growing up won't be done any time
soon. We all know that. Let him have his
fun--that's all this is to him. I can
guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind my
callsign one bit. He just likes having
the topic to throw around once in a while.
I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be
saving the poor wretch from complete and
awesome boredom!


I'm just having a little fun also, Kim. Periodic "discussions" with Larry
are a great diversion from a boring week. That situation will change this
weekend through most of next week and I'll have to reduce my participation
in this newsgroup. But, until then, this is a fun distraction.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll say it again, the person uninvolved with amateur radio won't know the
difference whether it was a sequentially or vanity-requested callsign. The
average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it. (Yes, believe it or
not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by your
apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the FCC
than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results other
than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a "electronic
medium."


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.


Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame. Any
vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
deemed offensive is their fault. I should have the right to request ANY
callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right to
do so by licensure requirements/benefits. If the list is including some of
what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not the
rest of us.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll say it again, the person uninvolved with amateur radio won't know the
difference whether it was a sequentially or vanity-requested callsign.
The
average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it. (Yes, believe it
or
not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by your
apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the
FCC
than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results other
than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a
"electronic
medium."


Know why he won't? He kept alluding to the fact that he was going to, or
kept inspiring others to do it. So, I wrote. I wrote knowing that Riley
would more than likely be the kind of person who probably doesn't appreciate
the humor in my callsign, but also knowing that he upholds to the principles
of a democracy. And, he did exactly that. He does not like my callsign.
But, he doesn't believe it is for the FCC to govern such things.


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.


Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame. Any
vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
deemed offensive is their fault. I should have the right to request ANY
callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right
to
do so by licensure requirements/benefits. If the list is including some of
what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not
the
rest of us.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...


It's not offensive, in any way. Larry just doesn't like a woman who can
think for herself, ergo he doesn't like anything about me. That's all it
is. He has no problem at all with my callsign. How could anyone as
offensive, crude, rude and belligerent as him have a problem with this
callsign?

Kim W5TIT

In article , JJ
writes:

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.

JJ:

Yes, indeed.

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".

Well, such a call sign is not offensive on it's face. The problem
with Kim's call is that it is both offensive and "in your face." Any
self-respecting YL who may have been issued a call with the "TIT"
suffix on a sequential basis would have to immediately request
a re-issue. Otherwise, if she voluntarily chose to keep it, then
she would be just as guilty as Kim is for having it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


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.

Kim:

This "admission" just makes your situation worse. Not only is your call sign
ill-considered, it was chosen as a result of a desire to impress your so-called
friends. I suggest you find new friends -- yours don't seem to be doing you
very much good.

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.

He obviously realized that it was just plain silly to attempt to have an
intelligent conversation with someone who would have such a call sign.

To make a long, boring story short,

That's never been a problem for you before, Kim -- so why should you care
about it now?

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.

They're not laughing with you, Kim -- they're laughing AT you.

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.

Obviously, taking yourself a bit more seriously would seem to be well in
order.

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

Does my participation in this newsgroup, and on this topic in particular,
indicate to ANYONE that I'm being "run off?" If so, please explain how!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:


"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.

Dwight:

Well, if that's the case, then I guess my "due respect" for your XYL is no
longer deserved.

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)

My intention is hardly to "dominate" Kim or any other woman, Dwight.
However, I'm curious as to why that thought occurred to you! In reality,
Kim's call sign tends to encourage men to think of her in that way, but,
then again, that's undoubtedly her intent. Not the kind of behavior I would
expect from a married woman and/or a mother, assuming she has any
children.

Like all men, I have a very deep appreciation for the female body, and I
enjoy the image of an attractive woman as much as anyone else. However,
I also have very traditional moral values, and know that the proper place
for such demonstrations of sexuality should be confined to the private
lives of committed, monogamous intimate partners. If you think that
sounds hopelessly old-fashioned, then thank you, very much!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:


"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.

Dwight:

Well, if that's the case, then I guess my "due respect" for your XYL is no
longer deserved.

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)

My intention is hardly to "dominate" Kim or any other woman, Dwight.
However, I'm curious as to why that thought occurred to you! In reality,
Kim's call sign tends to encourage men to think of her in that way, but,
then again, that's undoubtedly her intent. Not the kind of behavior I would
expect from a married woman and/or a mother, assuming she has any
children.

Like all men, I have a very deep appreciation for the female body, and I
enjoy the image of an attractive woman as much as anyone else. However,
I also have very traditional moral values, and know that the proper place
for such demonstrations of sexuality should be confined to the private
lives of committed, monogamous intimate partners. If you think that
sounds hopelessly old-fashioned, then thank you, very much!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

GRIN Larry *is* the lowest common denominator here, Dwight...LOL Know
that saying, "can't see the forest for the trees?"

Kim:

A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

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.

I get the oddest vision in my mind when I think of Larry and his incessant
whining about such puritanical thoughts. Know the vision? You know the
one: where a spanking is more the pleasure of the person touching the butt
than anything else? "I'm doing this for your own good" kind of thinking?

Kim, YOU'RE the one who just put that image in everyone's mind -- not me.
And in so doing, you've just cemented my position about you and your
call sign firmly into place.

Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not offended
or
confused by the simple mention of it.


We are dealing here, with someone who is not--no where near--most adults.


If a child is, the parent should
consider a discussion with them about human sexuality.

Man, you got that right.

Any adult who is attempting to introduce a child to the wonderful world of
amateur radio should properly expect to find an atmosphere which would
not require them to "have a discussion of human sexuality." Moreover, I'm
certain that outside of this newsgroup, you would find more agreement with
that statement than anything you've offered on the subject so far.

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.


More like if they're too young for that discussion, they probably wouldn't
be able to decipher W5TIT into the word tit.

No "deciphering" is required, Kim -- your call sign spells it out in the clear.

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/


Growing up won't be done any time soon. We all know that. Let him have his
fun--that's all this is to him. I can guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind
my callsign one bit. He just likes having the topic to throw around once in
a while. I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be saving the poor wretch
from complete and awesome boredom!

I assure you, Kim, that I don't need to pursue this particular subject to
allay my boredom!

73 de Larry, K3LT