"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

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

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792


As of September 1, 2003:

Novice - 33,156 (decrease of 16,173)
Technician - 257,830 (increase of 52,436)
Technician Plus - 65,928 (decrease of 62,932)
General - 141,402 (increase of 28,725)
Advanced - 82,931 (decrease of 16,851)
Extra - 104,512 (increase of 25,762)
Total - 685,759 (increase of 10,967)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"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.


I know what you mean. I have such a huge list of to-dos during the
summer that I have come to hate summer and most of the holidays.

In addition, I have an Alaska body thermostat. So I've learned to love
the winter.

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

I know what you mean. I have such a huge list
of to-dos during the summer that I have come
to hate summer and most of the holidays.

In addition, I have an Alaska body thermostat.
So I've learned to love the winter.


Please, lets not talk about the weather. This is the south - the place
with months of hot, steamy, days. And this last weekend was certainly no
exception. I prefer cooler weather also. I can get ten times the amount of
work done and not suffer nearly as much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Dwight you've obviously forever been devoid
of a clue, and if this statement doesn't prove
it nothing ever could. But it's far beyond
obvious anyway.


Well, Dick, since you're such an expert, why don't you explain what you
think I've missed? The only clue I get from the above is that you're again
speaking of things you have no idea about.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


heh heh heh. Asking Dick to answer an honest question with facts is like
getting Bill Clinton to .... uh, well, never mind.

Kim W5TIT

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

You said to Larry, in part-

you've spent the last several years trying
to sexualize Kim's callsign....


So you presume that Kim didn't sexualize it
when she chose it???

Yep. Truly clueless, that's our boy Dwight.


Well, no kidding. I thought Kim's part in all this was pretty obvious to
anyone with even a partial clue (which seems to rule you out). Instead, I
was talking to Larry about his part in this - the years he's spent trying to
sexualize Kim's callsign. Few others have made such an issue out of Kim's
callsign. And that has drawn more attention to that callsign than perhaps
anything else, even Kim's use of it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh heh heh. Asking Dick to answer an honest
question with facts is like getting Bill
Clinton to .... uh, well, never mind.


Well, I'm not going to be too hard on Dick. He missed the fact that I was
talking about what Larry had done, not what others had done. Without that
understanding, it is easy to see how he could become even more confused.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

You said to Larry, in part-

you've spent the last several years trying
to sexualize Kim's callsign....


So you presume that Kim didn't sexualize it
when she chose it???

Yep. Truly clueless, that's our boy Dwight.


Well, no kidding. I thought Kim's part in all this was pretty obvious to
anyone with even a partial clue (which seems to rule you out). Instead, I
was talking to Larry about his part in this - the years he's spent trying
to
sexualize Kim's callsign. Few others have made such an issue out of Kim's
callsign. And that has drawn more attention to that callsign than perhaps
anything else, even Kim's use of it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Pretty astute of you, Dwight. Since having this callsign I've been on the
air very little.

Kim W5TIT

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792


As of September 1, 2003:

Novice - 33,156 (decrease of 16,173)
Technician - 257,830 (increase of 52,436)
Technician Plus - 65,928 (decrease of 62,932)
General - 141,402 (increase of 28,725)
Advanced - 82,931 (decrease of 16,851)
Extra - 104,512 (increase of 25,762)
Total - 685,759 (increase of 10,967)

73 de Jim, N2EY


So ... 54.8158101% of US hams will immediately benefit from
dropping the Morse test (Techs/total of all classes, since Novices
already have 5 wpm credit for life.

No, they won't. You are mistaken. Math error!

Both Novices and most (but not all!) code-tested Techs have 5 wpm
credit for life. Check Part 97.

Interesting fact ... I'll have to remember that for my comments. Thanks.

You might want to get your facts right before embarrassing yourself,
Carl.

All Tech Pluses, as well as an unknown number of Techs, already have
credit for all of the code testing now required. The 257,830
Technicians on the books consist of the following:

- Techs who don't have the credit (never passed the test)
- Techs who don't have the credit (passed the test but let the CSCE
expire)
- Techs who have the credit (Tech Pluses who did a post-restructure
renewal)
- Techs who have the credit (valid CSCE)
- Techs who have the credit (Novices who did a post-restructure
upgrade)

Of these, only the first two groups will "benefit". The rest won't.
How many are in each group? You tell us. But remember that for more
than three years all Tech Pluses have been renewed as Techs.

You might want to check your math, too. Even if all 257,830 Techs are
counted as not having code test credit, 257,830/685,759 is
37.5977....%, not the 54+% you posted.

If we take the number of the first two groups as 210,000, (which is
reasonable considering new license issues, renewal and upgrade rates),
the percentage drops to less than 31%.

BIG differences from 54%.

You still want to tell FCC that 54.8158101% of US hams will
immediately benefit from dropping the Morse test? Be my guest.

Now if the number of US hams who are active NCI members is (let's be
generous) 4,000, that's 0.583....%



73 de Jim, N2EY

FISTS #4360

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

So ... 54.8158101% of US hams will immediately benefit from
dropping the Morse test (Techs/total of all classes, since Novices
already have 5 wpm credit for life.

Interesting fact ... I'll have to remember that for my comments. Thanks.

Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
requirements were dropped.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

So ... 54.8158101% of US hams will immediately benefit from
dropping the Morse test (Techs/total of all classes, since Novices
already have 5 wpm credit for life.

Interesting fact ... I'll have to remember that for my comments. Thanks.

Except it's not a fact at all. The correct percentage is about 30%, which is a
little more than half what Carl posted.

Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
requirements were dropped.

Those derned writtens...

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:02:29 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote:

Actually, the last time I subscribed to the ng, TIT's had left the
group and vowed never to return. Things changed I guess.

I told myself when she vowed to the group that she'd never return...

"she'll be back".

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:37:04 -0600, S. Hanrahan
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:02:29 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote:

Actually, the last time I subscribed to the ng, TIT's had left the
group and vowed never to return. Things changed I guess.

I told myself when she vowed to the group that she'd never return...

"she'll be back".

Did she ever really leave?

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Pretty astute of you, Dwight. Since having this
callsign I've been on the air very little.


Well, get on the air, girl! This is, after all, what this is all about.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

Pretty astute of you, Dwight. Since having this
callsign I've been on the air very little.


Well, get on the air, girl! This is, after all, what this is all about.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


heh heh...yeah, I know. There's been one reason or another for not having
the equipment connected. Right now, it's been for the last (nearly) two
years because of the new truck, having to find where I want the equipment;
then having to pause all that while I have some work done, etc.

Never have really talked from the house, except to run a training net, so
that's pretty much out of the question. In fact, both of us still wonder
why we put up a 70' tower, loaded it up with antennas and don't even have a
radio connected in here now. We used to have the HF rig set up and used to
use it every night; but haven't done that in nearly four years...maybe
longer.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim" wrote in message ...

put up a 70' tower, loaded it up with antennas and don't even have a
radio connected in here now.

I know a ham who did that - put up the tower and antennas when they
first moved in and left all of the coax ends coiled in a bucket
outside the house. hen they set about doing various move-in projects
and did not unpack the rigs right away, nor run the coaxes into the
house.

Sure enough, one of the neighbors with Gladys Kravitz syndrome
complained about "interference" and such that supposedly happened
since the antennas went up. Called FCC as I recall. Ham invited over
the neighbor and other interestested parties and showed 'em the coax
ends. No more complaints.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

put up a 70' tower, loaded it up with antennas and don't even have a
radio connected in here now.

I know a ham who did that - put up the tower and antennas when they
first moved in and left all of the coax ends coiled in a bucket
outside the house. hen they set about doing various move-in projects
and did not unpack the rigs right away, nor run the coaxes into the
house.

Sure enough, one of the neighbors with Gladys Kravitz syndrome
complained about "interference" and such that supposedly happened
since the antennas went up. Called FCC as I recall. Ham invited over
the neighbor and other interestested parties and showed 'em the coax
ends. No more complaints.

73 de Jim, N2EY


ROFLMAO!!! N5TIE, down here, name is Robert. Had a neighbor that would
raise the roof every time he got on CW. Well, one day she starts
complaining. Called him up. He sets his station up to ID every couple of
minutes and send a CW call (automatically). Then, he goes over to visit
with the neighbor.

heh heh, she never called again.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh heh...yeah, I know. There's been one reason or
another for not having the equipment connected. Right
now, it's been for the last (nearly) two years because
of the new truck, having to find where I want the
equipment; then having to pause all that while I have
some work done, etc.


All petty excuses. Anyway, speaking of trucks, mine was almost stolen last
night. I was up late and just happened to look out the door as a guy
approached the truck. I watched him as he looked in the window for several
seconds and then raised a rock over his head to break the glass. At that
point, I shouted for him to get away from the truck. He then ran to a
waiting pickup where his friend sped off. Sadly, the tailgate was down on
the pickup, so I couldn't see the license plate. Since there has been a
string of vehicle thefts around here lately, I called the police and gave
them the best description of the vehicle I could. Of course, by the time
they got here, the guys were long gone.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) Sure enough, one of the neighbors with
Gladys Kravitz syndrome complained about
"interference" and such that supposedly happened
since the antennas went up. Called FCC as I recall.
Ham invited over the neighbor and other interestested
parties and showed 'em the coax ends. No more
complaints.


That is funny. Years ago (at a retirement community), the boss suggested I
tell everyone my antennas were for television. Sure enough, two days after
the largest antenna went up (18 foot wide and 20 foot boom), a female
neighbor asked about it. When I told her it was for television, she looked
at it, paused for several seconds (obviously thinking), and seriously said I
must get really great reception. I almost died laughing (as did the boss
when I told him about it). That was my most humorious antenna situation.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

heh heh...yeah, I know. There's been one reason or
another for not having the equipment connected. Right
now, it's been for the last (nearly) two years because
of the new truck, having to find where I want the
equipment; then having to pause all that while I have
some work done, etc.


All petty excuses. Anyway, speaking of trucks, mine was almost stolen
last
night. I was up late and just happened to look out the door as a guy
approached the truck. I watched him as he looked in the window for several
seconds and then raised a rock over his head to break the glass. At that
point, I shouted for him to get away from the truck. He then ran to a
waiting pickup where his friend sped off. Sadly, the tailgate was down on
the pickup, so I couldn't see the license plate. Since there has been a
string of vehicle thefts around here lately, I called the police and gave
them the best description of the vehicle I could. Of course, by the time
they got here, the guys were long gone.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Oh man.... Well, I've thought about how I would "handle" the robbery of my
truck--it literally took me a lifetime of dreaming to get one; and I really
never thought I would be able to do it. BUT, if it was stolen I would hope
it was totally destroyed beyond being able to be returned and then I would
hope that the extra coverage I am carrying on it would hook me back up.
Kind of like when the house caught on fire...man the insurance company was
10X worse than the damned fire! I'm scared to death of fire again for fear
of what I'll have to go through with the insurance company!!

I told my neighbor that if he ever gets over here with a garden hose to put
the thing out again, I'll choke him. First he took serious risks standing
at an outside window that had blown, not to mention that the "smoke"
(actually fumes as you know) had reached that greenish-yellow phase, where
they can flash-fire at any point and he was standing right in the middle of
it as it war barreling out the window!! He just doesn't realize what could
have happened to him...and nothing in my home is worth the life of anyone,
nothing.

Kim W5TIT