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