"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/

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/

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/

"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

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

"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 , "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