Perhaps your messages in the CB
newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
against Ham Radio operators.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Your so full of it, produce the message, oh mighty CBplusser.

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

Damn its working.


Bruce, I realize your agenda is to drive Ham Radio right into the ground.
Why you would want to do so is beyond me. Perhaps your messages in the CB
newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
against Ham Radio operators.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Bruce is classic CB riffraff, and is the R.R.A.P. posterboy for the
Morse Myth that the Morse Exam keeps riffraff out of the Amateur Radio
Service.

Bruce is classic CB riffraff

Hey Dumb Ass, I have never been on CB, well thats not true. I have been on 2
Meter FM which is the same as 11 Meters.

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

There's a repeater here in Dallas. During the last Presidential campaign
and election, the hate spewed on that repeater was horrifying--and that is
not an overreaction. I heard things like that Democrats were the equivalent
of people who "let" things like Hitler happen and, believe me, that is mild.
That is why Larry remarks about my callsign--or anyone else's for that
matter--are such a damned joke. My callsign has nothing to do with the
destruction of the ARS.

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"?

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

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!

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

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

writes:

There's a repeater here in Dallas. During the last Presidential campaign
and election, the hate spewed on that repeater was horrifying--and that
is
not an overreaction. I heard things like that Democrats were the
equivalent
of people who "let" things like Hitler happen and, believe me, that is
mild.
That is why Larry remarks about my callsign--or anyone else's for that
matter--are such a damned joke. My callsign has nothing to do with the
destruction of the ARS.

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.


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

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.


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.

Kim W5TIT

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

Damn its working.


Bruce, I realize your agenda is to drive Ham Radio right into the
ground.
Why you would want to do so is beyond me. Perhaps your messages in the
CB
newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
against Ham Radio operators.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Bruce is classic CB riffraff, and is the R.R.A.P. posterboy for the
Morse Myth that the Morse Exam keeps riffraff out of the Amateur Radio
Service.

"Bruce" (if that's what you wish to call him--I call him Creep) is classic
riffraff, let CB alone...LOL

Kim W5TIT

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

You're right, Dwight. If Riley Hollingsworth's
words that he spoke to many groups, many times
are correct, then ham radio is dead--or is dying
a slow death. (snip)

(snip) It is people like Larry and his attitudes
that are destroying the ARS. In Larry's mind, it's
probably my fault because he has to be so hateful
toward me because of my callsign :)


You would think these people would know better. This type of endless
negative rhetoric from members would bring down any organization, from the
local church group to the worse prison gang. Even if one doesn't agree
with
that premise, most would agree it certainly doesn't help or improve
anything. If people care about Ham Radio, they need to start speaking out
against some of the most destructive behavior. Debate is fine, but there
is
a huge difference between honest debate and hateful rhetoric. I think even
Larry knows he has stepped over that line.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I don't think Larry cares...

Kim W5TIT

"Bruce" (if that's what you wish to call him--I call him Creep) is classic
riffraff, let CB alone...LOL

Kim W5TIT

I call you TIT, a FAT CB PIG.

Like the time you took an exam on a lark.


That still bothers you, that I could do that. And after all this time with Free
Handout Licenses, you still cant pass it. Dont feel bad your NCI Leader Karl
only took a Year to pass it. And of course he will not tell how many times he
Flunked it.

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?

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.

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.

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

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?

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, 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.

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"WA8ULX" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote...

Perhaps your messages in the CB newsgroup offer a
hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
against Ham Radio operators.


Your so full of it, produce the message, (snip)


What message? Obviously, you can't read any better than you can write. I
mentioned your messages (plural) in the CB newsgroup, not a specific
message.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Brian" wrote:

Bruce is classic CB riffraff, and is the
R.R.A.P. posterboy for the Morse Myth that
the Morse Exam keeps riffraff out of the
Amateur Radio Service.


Ironic, isn't it? Code didn't keep him out, certainly dispelling that
myth.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

What message? Obviously, you can't read any better than you can write. I
mentioned your messages (plural) in the CB newsgroup, not a specific
message.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)


Well than CBplusser produce the PLURAL MESSAGES

Bruce, I've read your postings here year in and year out. There's no
way you could get 100% on any amateur exam, even with studying. You
can barely spell your own name.

So, no, you couldn't do that.


Still bugs you, I could misspell all these words, score 100%, collect 250
dollars, and your still are not able to pass it. Maybe CW wasnt your weak
point, maybe your still waiting for another FREE Handout

"WA8ULX" wrote:

Well (snip) produce the PLURAL MESSAGES


Bruce, there are over a hundred messages posted by you in the CB
newsgroup. I'm certainly not going to post a copy of all those messages
here. Any person, including yourself, can do a Google search to see those
messages.

You're a CB'er, Bruce. Pointing a finger at others is not going to hide
that truth. And, based on your behavior here, you're probably one of the
worst type of CB'ers - rude, foul mouthed, no respect for others, using
equipment illegally, and so on. Since I don't live in your hometown, I
certainly can't prove that - but a leopard rarely changes it's spots. So
your behavior here is probably similar to your behavior there.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

You're a CB'er, Bruce.

You Dip ****, I have never owned a CB or even operated there. Unless you mean
to 2 meter Fm. Yea thats it you mean 2 Meter CB.

Bruce, tell it to someone who believes you. Anyone at all.

You just cant face the FACTS

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

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?

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, 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.


You've got that right, Dwight. I've had the pleasure to meet Riley, to
interview him for a local newsletter, and to speak with him one-on-one when
he spoke here in Texas at HamCom. We met out in the hallway before his
talk. He's too much a gentleman to act like Larry.


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Because Larry knows what would happen...

Kim W5TIT

"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

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Larry, do I need to regurge all your "my favorite black on the bus" episodes?

Why not?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"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/

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/