In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:


"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)


I'm glad to see that a good time is being had by all. Have a safe and
happy Labour Day week end, Dwight!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

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.

Ryan:

Well, that may be true, but it is the kind of moral relativism which is causing
our society to plummet straight into the ground on full afterburner.

(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."

I can't say I disagree with you here, Ryan. However, it is HERE that Kim
started on her campaign to trash up the image of the ARS, and it will be
here that I continue to keep the heat turned up under her feet. On the slight
chance that she may throw in the towel and change her callsign, I could then
take credit for saving her personal image and that of the ARS.

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.

Not really. The FCC is a government bureaucracy which must comply with
the demands placed on it by it's liberal, politically-appointed leaders. They
simply cannot impose any kind of "judgment" upon radio amateurs with
regard to call sign selection, since to do so would imply that there are, in
fact, moral absolutes...and that's one thing the government, which cannot
even permit a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building, just
isn't going to do these days. More's the pity.

Any
vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
deemed offensive is their fault.

Yes on the sequential assignments, a definite no on the vanity calls.
A Vanity call sign is self-selected by it's recipient; the FCC, as stated
above, is not going to interfere.

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.

I totally agree. Moreover, I would add that you have the responsibility to
make your selection one which is acceptable and not damaging to the
image of the ARS. Kim deliberately and willfully violated that concept
for the purpose of being able to flaunt a vulgar, "in your face," expression
of her "individuality."

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.

No, it is the "problem" of everyone who seeks to uphold some semblance of
traditional moral values in our society.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


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.

Kim:

That is quite correct, it's nice to see you finally get something right. The
FCC should not be in the business of controlling which call signs any ham
can or cannot have. That is, and always should be, entirely up to the good
taste and judgment of the individual ham. In your case, you have
demonstrated neither good taste nor good judgment. That's why you're
doing the carpet dance.

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.

It's not offensive, in any way.

It *is* offensive, Kim -- in virtually EVERY way.

Larry just doesn't like a woman who can
think for herself,

That's the only kind of woman I *do* like, Kim. However, you have not
demonstrated much of what I'd call "thinking" ability in your choice of a call
sign.

ergo he doesn't like anything about me.

The pity of this whole thing is, Kim, that there just may be some things
about you that I do like. However, I can't get past the call sign, or your
"in your face" attitude toward it.

That's all it is. He has no problem at all with my callsign.

Earth to Kim, come in Kim! Yes, Kimmie dear, I DO have a problem with
your callsign!

How could anyone as
offensive, crude, rude and belligerent as him have a problem with this
callsign?

Well, you're obviously out of arguments, since the name calling is
being dragged out again. You lose!

73 de Larry, K3LT

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.

Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again, if the FCC is making
any specific callsigns available that are allegedly deemed "offensive" then
they are the ones that are responsible for that callsign. The efforts to
get those callsigns blocked/banned/removed etc. falls on them as long as
they are the governing body over amateur radio. It's just that simple.




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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

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.

Ryan:

Well, that may be true, but it is the kind of moral relativism which is
causing
our society to plummet straight into the ground on full afterburner.

And it started long before Kim was even born for that matter......


(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."

I can't say I disagree with you here, Ryan. However, it is HERE that Kim
started on her campaign to trash up the image of the ARS, and it will be
here that I continue to keep the heat turned up under her feet. On the
slight
chance that she may throw in the towel and change her callsign, I could
then
take credit for saving her personal image and that of the ARS.

Right, and this is not ham radio, it is merely a discussion group relating
to amateur radio in some fashion or another.....


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.

Not really. The FCC is a government bureaucracy which must comply with
the demands placed on it by it's liberal, politically-appointed leaders.
They
simply cannot impose any kind of "judgment" upon radio amateurs with
regard to call sign selection, since to do so would imply that there are,
in
fact, moral absolutes...and that's one thing the government, which cannot
even permit a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building, just
isn't going to do these days. More's the pity.

The FCC is the issuing body that gives the licenses out to recipients who
have met the requirements for each license class at the time of issuance.
Unless some other governmental organization is the one actually issuing the
licenses and maintaining the callsign database, they ARE responsible. Write
to your congress or senatorperson to get the FCC to remove the list of what
callsigns you deem offensive. After all, the majority of the congress and
senate ARE Republicans now.




Any
vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
deemed offensive is their fault.

Yes on the sequential assignments, a definite no on the vanity calls.
A Vanity call sign is self-selected by it's recipient; the FCC, as stated
above, is not going to interfere.

Pure BS.... the FCC has people on their staff that can manage a database,
it's that simple. Remove the ones that are not "acceptable.



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.

I totally agree. Moreover, I would add that you have the responsibility
to
make your selection one which is acceptable and not damaging to the
image of the ARS. Kim deliberately and willfully violated that concept
for the purpose of being able to flaunt a vulgar, "in your face,"
expression
of her "individuality."

I guess that is all a matter of perception. I would actually have to see
real proof that it really has damaged the ARS, other that a perception of a
few people here....



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.

No, it is the "problem" of everyone who seeks to uphold some semblance of
traditional moral values in our society.


Define which moral values. Different groups have different values that they
deem to be of the utmost importance. That is a different subject
all-together though.




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

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Define which moral values. Different groups have different values that
they
deem to be of the utmost importance. That is a different subject
all-together though.




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



Here is what I think is an excellent parody:

We could (hopefully) all agree that all crime is "offensive." All crime is
offensive because, well, it is against the law. However, I (me, personally)
disagree that the growth and use of marijuana for personal use is OK, and
should not be against the law. Even so, I understand and agree that anyone
caught growing, carrying or using should "pay the crime." Yet, I will
support a goal aimed at the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use.

That's more than I intended to say, but my point is: we could all agree that
something is offensive. I do not agree that my callsign is offensive. We
could all agree that some moral values are deemed to be of the utmost
importance. I do not agree that my callsign is morally incorrect;
therefore, my callsign does not commit offense to any morals.

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

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


She'll do just fine without your concept of respect, Larry.


(snip) 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. (snip)


The thought occurred to me because you've spent the last several years
trying to sexualize Kim's callsign. I can remember back when I first ran
into this discussion. At the time, since I hadn't noticed her callsign
before, it took me several messages to figure out what you were talking
about. I ignored that discussion and didn't respond to the topic for several
more months (many dozens of messages later).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I'm glad to see that a good time is being had
by all. Have a safe and happy Labour Day week
end, Dwight!


Are you kidding? I busted my tail this last weekend. In addition to moving
to a new apartment (and cleaning the old one), I sold an old computer, spent
days shopping for a new computer, took my wife's car to the shop (had to get
it running well enough to do that), and more. At this point, I darn glad
this last weekend is over. I still have a ton to do, but it can be spaced
out enough to get a break occasionally.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

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

She'll do just fine without your concept of respect, Larry.

Dwight:

Thanks, that's quite reassuring.

(snip) 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. (snip)

The thought occurred to me because you've spent the last several years
trying to sexualize Kim's callsign. I can remember back when I first ran
into this discussion. At the time, since I hadn't noticed her callsign
before, it took me several messages to figure out what you were talking
about. I ignored that discussion and didn't respond to the topic for several
more months (many dozens of messages later).

Well, Dwight, it's nice to know that after you've been repeatedly smacked
upside the haid with the plainly obvious, you eventually get it.

73 de Larry, K3LT