"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
"WA3IYC" wrote:

A problem only if you take them seriously.


I used to not take them seriously. However, after I start hearing what
is
written here repeated outside this newsgroup, it is perhaps time to start
taking the stuff written here more seriously. A lot of people, far more
than
perhaps some imagine, read this newsgroup. Absent an alternative
viewpoint,
they have no reason not to believe what they read here, and repeat it
elsewhere. Enough of this and the entire image of this radio service is
dragged down - which is exactly what I think is going on now.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


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. I know and have heard the very conversations you speak of. When I
first heard talk like that on the air when I got my ticket, I was shocked
because I didn't think it was allowed.

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. 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

Kim W5TIT

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

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/

"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