Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors |